My paper says nothing about this. It just shows that a distorted transaction fee market insufficient for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security exists without a block size limit
I fixed it for you.
Your most glaringly flawed assumption is to ignore the fact
block space is a scarce resource that is sold, but not paid for, by the miners...which is why a "tragedy of the commons" situation can only be avoided by a block size cap.
Peter is not ignoring it, he just doesn't agree with it.
We already debunked that myth if you were paying attention. Just because it was said on reddit doesn't mean it's true.