> The good set of rules wins because, assuming rational actors, a greater volume of economic value will be transacted with those rules over time, correct?

Yes I'd agree with that 

SimpleStacker

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your rules' influence on the network is proportional to your economic activity?

And, in that sense, my argument was that a set of rules with worse properties is going to lose to a set of rules with better properties, even if the economic activity on worse rules was higher.

If you mean a set of rules can lose or gain value independent of economic 

, I see what you're saying. The good set of rules wins because, assuming rational actors, a greater volume of economic 

 will be transacted with those rules over time, correct?

bitcoin

Economic Bitcoin Nodes: Why You Need To Use Your Node For It To Matter

k00b

> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your rules' influence on the network is proportional to your economic activity?

Yes.

> And, in that sense, my argument was that a set of rules with worse properties is going to lose to a set of rules with better properties, even if the economic activity on worse rules was higher.

If you mean a set of rules can lose or gain value independent of economic *activity*, I see what you're saying. The good set of rules wins because, assuming rational actors, a greater volume of economic *value* will be transacted with those rules over time, correct?