Anyways, if your fixated on schemes that completely eliminate block size dependent orphaning risks, it's easy to come up them.
If you're aware of this, why do you keep repeating as fact that it isn't possible? e.g.
In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.
it's easy to come up them.I mentioned one early in the thread in response to Jonald (i.e., miners agree to mine a "practice" blockchain first such that the real blockchain is a verbatim copy [minus the blockheaders of course] but lagging by 1 hour).
By "easy to come up" you mean it's easy to copy them from the previously linked
private email correspondence I had with you on this subject months ago? -- even including the time constant:
Miners volutarily participate in a fast consensus mechenism which
commits to transactions-- it could be a merged mined blockchain (like
the P2Pool chain, which commits to transactions) or something entirely
different. No reward is given for participation in this scheme. In
their Bitcoin blocks miners only include transactions which are at
least 6 blocks deep in that chain, moreover they include all
transactions which are in it, in a determinstic order.
I am cannot fathom what you are thinking.