But that underlined wasn't the problem. Did you forget the point about the Nash equilibrium and all validators needing to trust that the validators from other partition didn't lie.
If validators lie so convincingly, the
whole network is lying and you have a lost cause.
Transactions will not propagate to the block producers in all other cases.
monsterer w.r.t. to the underlined, I grow very weary of you subjecting all of us to your pretending you are some sort of expert. You may be expert on bitcoind (presumably you are given you created an exchange and btw I am ignorant of bitcoind specifics although I understand the conceptual aspects I need to know to do my design theory).
I have no idea why you can't comprehend what I already explained:
Note that validators can be computing a PoW block based on a hash of their partition and a hash of all the other partitions. Don't forget the power of Merkel trees.
The point is the block producers only need hashes of the partitions. They don't have to verify every transaction. I explained that this maintains Nash equilibrium in certain scenarios:
Note in case it wasn't clear from my upthread posts, strict partition (no cross-partition transactions) for crypto coin (i.e. asset transfers) maintains Nash equilibrium. But cross-partition transactions for asset transfers does not maintain Nash equilibrium (unless using a statistical check as I am proposing for my design, and some may think this is dubious but my white paper will make the argument for it). And strict partitioning for scripts can't exist, because the partitions are violated by external I/O.
It seems monsterer that you have an inflexible mind. You can only see things in one way which is what you already understand about how bitcoind works. There are other possible designs.