This would be the final arbiter.
But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began.
Yup. It's the silent ace up investors' sleeves that prevents any funny business by the miners, devs, or other stakeholders.
This is incomplete logic thus illogical.
The essay forgets:
1. A 51% attack can enforce a protocol, but not including minority blocks in the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' argument upthread that anyone could prove this is happening and thus get the masses to act on it by pulling their mining nodes (the masses don't mine). There is no way to prove that a minority chain is the honest one when it comes to censoring transactions.
2. Mining income is not the only potential profit motive from some entity aggregating hashrate for the purposes of censoring transactions.
3. Asymmetries in the impacts on profitability of different classifications of miners due to protocol changes, potentially change the dynamics in ways that the author's simpleton analysis miss.
I don't think you see the full extent of the paradigm shift the author hints at (perhaps the author doesn't, either).
A 51% attack is one thing, sure, if that's your concern it gets more complicated but certainly not impossible to tell that, for example, there is widespread inability to get transactions through. In the worst case, a nuke (spinoff to protocol with a different mining algo, retaining the ledger) can be made to be very easy to do. No proof of miner malfeasance is needed, mere suspicion will do if it is easy enough to go through the spinoff process. If it needs to be a regular thing, it can soon be done without the user even noticing
by having the wallet software be advanced enough. Let that sink in. Investors always
hold the final card. Miners make investors jumpy at their own peril, no matter what the miners' motivations are. Certainly there are tradeoffs, as investors know not to piss miners off too much or else alienate their hashing security team, but if this is just going to be another "Bitcoin is broken because 51% attack" argument where you are saying your system fixes this, well, that's cool but only once you show it. It doesn't mean anything to anyone just saying you have a better solution. We have no way of knowing you're right or wrong, and there are too many claiming the same.
Now if you'll say everyday users/sheep will just go with the flow, sure, they may and they will have their transactions censored, then, but with wallet software that makes it a snap - even unnoticeable, default - to switch to spinoffs at will so that the ledger is always maintained, the friction is reduced to practically zero. At worst we are back to a situation where people "don't realize they should be using Bitcoin," but this time it's little more than a single click on an interface to fix that.