You apparently still haven't comprehended that for a strict partitioning that obeys the Nash equilibrium, i.e. for transactions that are never allowed to cross-partitions, then the partition doesn't need a separate PoW nor separate block chain. It can be essentially merge-mined (but in the same block chain) without impacting the Nash equilibrium for the block producers. And my other point was that strict partitioning can't exist for scripting yet it can exist for asset transfers (e.g. crypto coin transactions).
I understand perfectly. Under this model, the incentive for block producers is to
exclude partitions from their blocks, because every partition they include increases the chance of their block being orphaned due to double spends. In fact, this is analogous to the problem faced by Iota.
No you don't. And you are slobbering all over the thread. I guess I have to put you on ignore again.
Excluding a partition means the coin dies and thus their block rewards become worthless. You seem to not even comprehend Nash equilibrium. Really this is getting to be too much. You constantly waste my time. And you feel no remorse.
You apparently still haven't understood the point. The blocks are not invalid when a strict partition is invalid.
Of course one might argue that strict partitioning (thus by definition is without cross-partition transactions) is not that flexible. But nevertheless the point remains that there is a design which refutes your assumption.
A strict partition which is invalid serves no purpose that I can see?
You seem to be incapable of remembering anything I write:
The case of strict partioning which I explained upthread does not cause the block to be invalidated if the partition lied (and I think I explained in my video too)! Did you forget that again. Do I need to go quote that upthread statement by me again! Because the partitions are independent, thus a partion can be invalidated without needing to invalidate the entire block (i.e. the next block corrects the partition in the prior block by providing a proof-of-cheating).