You don't need global consensus, as the only person that needs to verify the history of an asset is the receiver!

Thank you for that insight. I have learned to take such critiques with a grain of salt because most of the time, even if 100% accurate, they're solvable, or even a fully conscious and temporal trade-off for the sake of a quick PoC. It happens even in the world of mechanical engineering: I have made some quick designs with obviously temporal and easily solvable trade-offs to be critiqued for them like if the overall concept itself was flawed. I have seen that happening with LN itself, for in it's early stages it had blatant flaws which ended up not being inherent to the concept itself and where all solved one by one over time. I have also learned to not to take a critique that's more than one year old, I'm amazed to see devs (the ones who know the dynamic of the tech) stubbornly repeating old observations.