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.
we already debunked that myth if you were paying attention. Just because it was said on reddit doesn't mean it's true.
So you are claiming which of the following?
A. block space is *not* a scarce resource
B. miners *don't* sell block space
C. miners *do* pay for block space
D. tragedy of the commons *won't* ensue
E. tragedy of the commons *can't* be avoided by a size cap
F. tragedy of the commons can be avoided by something *besides* a size cap
I think you're going for F. but since you simply assert debunking with no elaboration I can't really be sure.
It doesn't matter, because we know from empirical data 1MB is already too large to completely prevent the negative externalities, false economies, and negative marginal returns which are occuring due to information/accountability/incentives destroyed or perverted by subsidizing free riders in the mining and user subsystems.
Peter's shiny new illustrations are indeed excellent. But besides the slick graphics to impress the Redditurd mob, his paper is a giant obfuscatory nothingburger. Cite:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-08-30/?msg=48477664&page=1#REKT