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.
I have no idea why you can't comprehend what I already explained:
What you are saying makes no sense at all. There are two possibilities as I see it:
1. Invalid transactions arrive in the hands of the block producers. This implies the network as a whole has failed because invalid transaction should not be propagated.
2. Block producers produce blocks containing invalid transactions due to lack of validation. Their blocks will be orphaned by block producers which do validate, which is a net loss for those who don't, forcing these SPV miners out of business and causing centralisation.
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.
I don't agree with this assessment either. In a partitioned system which requires a cross partition transaction, this new transaction
merges the two partitions; it places a ordering constraint on both partitions which forces the new transaction to be located after the two points of dependency (both parents).