Yes I am AnonyMint.
I haven't been reading the thread to see if there are any follow ups.
I am still analyzing your design. I think the main issue is because afaics witnesses have nothing-at-stake and afaics it can't be objectively determined which witnesses are creating units referencing MCs which create ambiguity about whether finality was really final. It may also not be objective which witnesses are mishaving. But I may not yet completely understand the design.
Don't confuse with PoS, witnesses' stakes are
outside the system.
I mean stake in more general terms of what is at risk in the game theory of attacks not specifically its assumed meaning in PoS, but I need to understand your design better before I can posit anything concrete on that. Any way...
I don't understand how you achieve this sentence in Section 6 of the white paper:
We would stop traveling as soon as we had encountered the majority of witnesses.
How can you know what the set of witnesses is in the history when the set is allowed to change in time?
Note I may be wrong about lack of objectivity since I have just noticed your rule that addresses have to reference their prior units in the parent chain else that is objectively misbehavior, so I presume the same rule applies (stringently) to witnesses.
Before I had just skimmed the paper and now I am reading it in detail.