As such, you comment is not exactly strong evidence to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

Muga, please look at the context again. I was arguing against (a small detail mentioned by) Eliezer. Eliezer does mostly agree with me on such matters. Once you reread bearing that in mind you will hopefully understand why when I assumed that you merely misunderstood the comment in the context I was being charitable.

My point was that the same logic could be applied, by someone who accepts the hypothetical blacmailer's argument, to your description of "one single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed ... the description of 'multiple levels of precommitment" made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category 'blackmail'.

I have no particular disagreement, that point is very similar to what I was attempting to convey. Again, I was not attempting to persuade optimistic blackmailer advocates of anything. I was speaking to someone resistant to blackmail about an implementation detail of the blackmail resistance.

The 'evidence' I need to provide to blackmailers is Argumentum ad thermitium. It's more than sufficient.