I believe I have figured out what Fuserleer's design is doing based on re-reading the descriptions above.
I believe what he is attempting is to define a data structure wherein he can partition double-spends so that they can not cross-partition each other. In other words, once there is a double-spend, instead of discarding it (and unrelated transactions in the same chain), he isolates those transactions which depend on the double-spend and prevents them from cross-pollinating each other in derivative transactions.
The problem with this of course is it ruins the incentive to converge. It becomes a divergent block chain where the incentive is to double-spend and create forks (within the same system).
I'd be interested to hear Fuserleer's retort. I will PM him .
No need. Note the date.
https://twitter.com/eMunie_Currency/status/563728882415992832You can replace the words "block chain" with "consensus system" in my quoted text. The point about the design remains that even by making partitions strict and allowing double-spends to live in separate partitions, it creates afaics a divergent system that incentivizes double-spending, doesn't provide consensus over which double-spend is valid, and is thus chaotic failure.