What's with Todd and his obsessing with O(n²) scaling?

[Windowly]

Peter Todd continues to refer to O(n²) scaling as a reason why Bitcoin can't scale on a fundamental level and why Bitcoin can't be both a means of payment and a means of settlement.

Gavin has dealt pretty decisively with why this argument is wrong in his blog several months ago, but I haven't seen any rebuttal by Todd anywhere.

[LiteCoinGuy]

"Finally, there’s this O(n2) argument:

If we assume that there are ‘n’ users, and a constant proportion of them (say 1%) run full nodes, and each user generates a certain number of transaction per day… then the total validation work done by all the full nodes every day is O(n2). (really, O((n/100)2), but constant factors are ignored in big-o notation)

There are two things wrong with this argument; first, the assumption that a constant proportion of users will run full nodes as the network grows might be incorrect. It is likely a larger and larger proportion of people will choose to run partially-validating nodes. In the future there might be a billion people using bitcoin but only tens of thousands (instead of tens of millions) fully-validating nodes. That would be a bright, successful, decentralized, secure future.

The second thing wrong with that argument is that while the entire network might, indeed, perform O(n2) validation work, each of the n individuals would only perform O(n) work– and that is the important metric, because each individual doesn’t care how much work the rest of the network is doing to validate transactions, they just care about how much work their computer must do."

-------

i did not read a comment from Todd on that too. Maybe Todd is too much involed in Viacoin to write a reply