I'll accept that you can compute a
probability of a double spend succeeding in the absence of a block reward in the face of an attacker who is arbitrarily attacking. However, you must have missed this from the 2nd paper you linked about the motivation of the attacker, which adds critical detail to the analysis:
https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf#page=12v=value of double spend
r=probability of double spend success
k=number of merchants attacked per block
alpha=liquidity of purchase
B=block reward
"This means that discouraging an attack requires that:"
v <= (20*(1-r)*B) / (k*(alpha + r - 1))
Set B = 0, then
v <= 0
So to discourage an attack in the absence of a block reward, the value of the double spend must be 0.
I.e. it's impossible to discourage without a block reward.You have ignored the implications of the variable
k and note the equation fails to consider capital costs. Chomp on that for a while, as I need to step outside for 3 hours. You will soon come to realize that the above equation is nonsense.
Start with a nonsense, non-holistic equation and you get only a nonsense result. And boastful, disrespect n00bs who memorized something from a white paper and think they are qualified to disrespect me.
Try to rephrase the answer in another form, he might get it then lol
Eat more humble pie.