Cutting out noise to address a particular point.
He makes too many assumptions about how other nodes will respond.
Exactly the opposite. I make far fewer assumptions about the choices of nodes. See the Cracking the Code thread in the Bitcoin discussion subforum where they assume that 100% of the nodes will run a centralized designed client software. And where they assume that the convergence of nodes will be to the attacked chain. I make no assumptions. I call it a risk.
Since when did 100% become more likely than a range of possibilities? That defies a fundamental comprehension of entropy, chaos and nature.
He assumes that all (non-negligible) nodes will react in what he considers to be the highest profit seeking manner; thus completely ignoring the fact that many nodes have economic incentives to resist the formation of a cartel,
Rather
I assume that miners can't continue if their electricity costs more than the income they receive. That seems to be a basic accepted economic fact.
Except that I demostrated several reasons why that is not an economic fact; and that it's long been understood that there will be institutions willing to mine zero margin or less for other economic reasons. One of which I actually do, wchich is use the heat for zone heating in winter (roughly 15% of the network hash power is "other unknown" which I would be part of) another being the competing cartels (Walmart&McDonalds versus Target & Burger King) mining for major players in competing industries, for which finance is not tehir primary business, but is already a cost center.
that many nodes have economic incentives to try to outcompete and otherwise undermine the primary cartel membership (in this case Amazon, and because Amazon has real competitors, just not direct ones) and that many nodes have no significant economic incentive in either case, but do have a vested interest in the network's 'status quo'.
Noise sounds good. But is completely devoid of relevant information content. I will not explain.
And that is the point Rassah & I have been making. You don't respond to critisisms of your theory. If you can't manage my objections to your theory, then you don't have a theory.