an aberrant block that takes an inordinate amount of time (e.g., hour) to verify but is otherwise valid
Nobody is going to construct, much less accept and mine on, a block that takes 60 minutes to verify.
Exactly. Precisely my point. Now if nobody is going to construct, much less accept and mine on a block that takes 60 minutes to verify, then why are we in a panic over blocks that will take 60 minutes to verify?
As I said, mining incentives are already aligned in order to render the quadratic sig hash time issue a non-problem.
So now that you've correctly identified one of the blocks that will not be built atop, you still have not weighed in with which of the three blocks a rational miner would build atop. Care to guess?
No idea why you are babbling about nonsense like 60 minute verification times. Might as well go full
The problem here is you have no idea where the grey area between reasonable and inordinate is, despite having the required knowledge spoon fed to you like a baby ("F2pool's ~1mb tx took 4 min on Electrum server, which would fall behind the network given ~2.5mb tx").
You don't even seem to be aware verification times vary according to the miners' node software and server hardware/network capabilities, nor of the fact such power imbalances may be used maliciously against other miners. Did you sleep through the discussion about the GFOC?
Miners' decisions depend on their local conditions, counterparty obligations, goals, motivations, and levels of expertise, the amount of fees in the blocks, their software/hardware/network configuration/capabilities/limitations, what they expect other miners to do and/or their strategy for attacking other miners (game theory), etc.
It appears you are committed to remaining somewhere other than here in the real world where O(n^2) attacks are a problem, and going to stick with the wishful thinking, hand-waving, and "Because Mining Incentives!" slogan.
Good luck with that!
