An attacker is up against the entire world's CPUs (and remember I designed a very efficient CPU hash in 2014). And who is going to finance that mining farm, when mining is unprofitable?
This is the same as in any PoW chain, nothing different there.
I explained what is different but you've decided to ignore the education:
I already had explained this and I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to comprehend that the payers must send a PoW with their transactions. The majority of the PoW comes from payers, and the payers have every incentive to approve the longest chain, so their transactions are included on the block chain. If an individual payer wants to attempt a double-spend, he doesn't have enough PoW by himself to accomplish it.
Profitability of mining has nothing to do with the incentives in my design. I hope I don't have to explain this again.
Remember your point (seems you forget your own points, haha) was that in PoW an attacker must sustain his attack at ongoing cost. But how does the attacker finance this cost when none of his costs are being recouped. I think you fail to consider many factors including for example that mining farms near hydropower generation plants have Bitcoin costs in the range of $50 per BTC. Thus mining centralizes and hashrate centralizes because of the economic profitability of mining.
What evil can the attacker do to recover his costs of mounting the attack? What is the incentive to do evil and how does the attacker finance the attack? And what can he accomplish with an attack? Of course a miner can short the coin, but can he recover enough profit from a short to pay for a 51% attack sustained long enough to do a double-spend that any large sector of the ecosystem cares about? If payees are following the correct probabilities (per Bitcoin 101 below), then the 51% attacker needs win at least 6 blocks to execute a double-spend of any significant value (unless he can spread out his spends in many smaller transactions). But this is the same for Bitcoin's design as well. There is no difference due to the mining being profitable or unprofitable. Miners in Bitcoin aren't incentivized to not short the coin, otherwise they wouldn't rent out mining hardware.
You are completely out-of-touch with the reality of the economics of mining. The reason Bitcoin is so vulnerable is because mining is profitable and thus finances the creation of ASICs and mining farms.
Also you make the assumption that the professional mining farms in profitable PoW of Bitcoin (i.e. Satoshi's design) don't have an incentive to do evil. I explained upthread that they will roll over when the government regulates them, because it is entirely in their interest to do so. Please don't ask me to repeat those points I made upthread since you didn't disagree with them at the time.
What the fuck can't you comprehend from above?
You have an inability to think about anything in paradigm-shift terms. You tried to analyze a DAG as if all the branches obey a deterministic relative ordering, totally failing to comprehend that such an ordering is impossible without a global clock (since the LCR is impossible given multiple branches). Now you are demonstrating your intellectual handicap again.
I will reply to your myopic math delusion after I complete some tasks this morning. Don't forget how
I taught the Monero developers some math recently (and make you sure scroll 2 pages up that thread and see how they were so sure of themselves and boastful just the same as you are now). Hint: unbounded entropy of the universe.
I mean that without a total ordering you can't decide which double-spend to discard when those double-spends appear in separate branches of the tree.
Prepare to be surprised.
In addition, I just want to say that I am not attempting to attack you, or your idea here, I am just trying to help you succeed; it is better for a idea to receive the harshest critical analysis *before* you go to all the pains of implementing it, wherein it would be too late to fix the problems. I would like to offer suggestions in how to fix these flaws, if I can.
You are wasting my time and I won't be surprised. I will be forced to point out more of your myopia.
It was already explained to you upthread that due to the fact that the speed-of-life can't be infinite, then it is impossible to have decentralized, trustless Consistency in the face of multiple perspectives (i.e. branches a.k.a. Partitions) without consuming some resource in a LCR. Any idea you are contemplating will be flawed because it violates the fundamental nature of our universe.