tips to promote:
political promoters:
DO NOT promote regulation. regulation does not help people. instead it just gives businesses a shiny sherrifs badge to stalk and spy on people and report them for doing things with thier own funds
DO promote consumer protections. as consumer protections ensure those doing business are insured against loss and also protected by data privacy laws.

social promoters:
DO arrange local discussion meetups by searching out people that know more than enough about bitcoin that live in your area to help discuss and present information about what blockchains are all about.
DONT just arrange 'investment' meetups because usually the talks end up just sounding like get rich quick scams which gives blockchains a bad name as people still dont understand what blockchains are really about.

merchant adoption
DONT just walk into a national distribution merchant and demand they start accepting crypto or else you will walk out. as thy will just smile and watch you walk. local managers dont have those kind of powers to make such payment changes to a nationally released checkout service software.
DO organise local meetups and find out what are the most popular local independant stores that do have some say in how they are run. find the ones local bitcoiners would actually use if they accepted crypto and concentrate your efforts on those stores first.
DO even offer to give the merchant a pre funded 'bar tab' of fiat that way the retailer is not at a loss thinking that they will never see the money while accepting a strange token they never heard of/dont understand enough of. then the local bitcoiner(s) become the guy that get the coin from the merchant and the merchant gets the fiat. then expand on how the merchant can self service it all by using proper exchanges or keep the crypto for own investment

education adoption
again using local meetups/microcons (small conferences) teach people but about the 'investment' but the tech and stability of blockchains in comparison to crappy banking software and regulations. again dont push the investment side too much as even selling ice to an eskimo can sound investible if worded right. but if you concentrate on the tech and the social advantages, then those wanting to invest will do so happily without the feeling that its a iffy sales pitch

a mining 51% attack is no threat.
the reason being is that miners cannot change the rules of the network.
imagine the 'attack' as a 100m race. yea on athlete has more speed and wins more often.. but its the officials that then test his blood and urine, notice he is on drugs and disqualify him for cheating.

however
take the 2017 event. it was the devs that FORCED a network change by saying unless miners follow the dvs new rules on a specific date, the miners will get thrown off the network.

the only fear of a mining 51% threat is that they blacklist certain transactions. as all other fears can be coded out with just 2 lines of code. and even if they start making blocks without transactions. that too can be coded to reject blocks that dont have tx's

 the real fear is the devs

and on the other side the
The social/political attack vector. The 1mb base stagnation apartheid by major Bitcoin companies and devs in 2017. it was Wall Street institutions that are trying to stagnate and segregate the community and co-opt the protocol.

(1mb=controlling the protocol.. aparthied/segregation= throwing the non COREperate opposition off the network)

yes Barry silberts company that owns most major exchanges of influence and put millions into the dev teams pockets to try innovating a corporate orientated network of hubs and group management which doesnt even use blockchains and requires people to lock funds into custodian co-managed scripts. thus not only avoid using the bitcoin networks security for payments but also reduces peoples self control and sol ownership of funds.

thus making bitcoin appear to be by their actions, not useful and not something that will innovate into something the world can use because those BScartel people want people to use their other networks instead. thus strangling bitcoin.

just remember how bank notes turned out once banks started messing with the 'gold backed promissory notes' that replaced actually using gold. yes even tether recently shown the futur of what can happen once people are STUCK using millisats(altnet(LN) token) instead of real btc

1. smart watches screens can handle displaying a 'to:' and 'amount:'. smart watches also can be voice command. touch screen, there are many ways to input simple text. basically if you take a phone and remove the circuitry for bluetooth, wifi, gsm, 4g,5g and use a smaller screen. all the same processing a phone can do a smartwatch can do.

2. if you think CPU's have exploits then it doesnt matter what OS is running so put your 'has to be linux' mantra aside aswell., the exploit you presume to be concerned with is hardware level.
      yes i still laugh you want to keep bitcoin held back due to PC fears.. whats next go call EA/rockstar and tell them to stop releasing new games due to CPU risks people can use to exploit peoples credit card details when they buy ingame purchases. go on tell rockstar to not make the next GTA unless its only Linux based runtime. watch them laugh.
whats that i then here, OH no netflix should stop taking payment over the internet for monthly subscriptions.. oh no youtube should stop
paying its vloggers, stop taking payments from advertisers. omg the world has to stop taking payments..
(see how silly that sounds when your thought process is expanded)

3. adding to point 1. wearables will be the secure wallet to spend and pc's will b the nodes to broadcast signed spends and to monitor the network. again thinking people need to avoid wearables and lug around a 2005 desktop PC when they go shopping is completely ridiculous, but you seem to think thats the future.
whats next trust second hand pc's bought on ebay,, remember to ask yourself where are people to find these now outdated pc's you wish people to DOWNGRADE to. as they cant be now freshly manufactured as you would start saying they too have exploits added

here is the future i see. hardware companies making motherboards with tx&block validation asic chips on them, instead of generic CPU's that way every joule of power sparking across the board is used 100% for being a network node.
imagine 1chip the size of a penny can handle ~350,000,000 sha functions /sec right now. thus something around the size of a raspberry pi
can do all the processes of signature validation and txid hashing and block validation. oh and the price would be under $400

and the wearable is the wallet people can carry on their wrist without needing to lug around a decade old musty desktop pc. without having to worry about security. yea the node wont store private keys so no need for concerns about CPU exploits in anyway

but hey keep making the excuses that bitcoin shouldnt scale with your myths. its great comedy
by they way. saying bitcoin is unique and all that blah................ one word. altcoin

if you take away bitcoins advantage of being useful by pushing people into other networks like LN and altcoins. guess what. bitcoin becomes useless.. yes LN is not a bitcoin layer/feature/network.. its its own network trying to garner VC investors by playing off the fame of bitcoin, whilst trying to remove bitcoins purpose
have a nice day

1. trezors flaw is that it needs to connect to a computer. and then use the computers GUI to log-in.[keyboard logger risk][phishing risk] people have made many phishing/virus schemes that pretend to say 'device issues please input seed' to steal your funds because they broadcast the seed to the hacker.
yes gen1 hardware wallets are crap.
but this does not make using generic computers better.

2. microprocessor technology is evolving so much that it wont require desktop computers at $1000 with a 20" lcd screen and a 15inch keyboard and mouse to opperate. it will be devices the size of your phone that in the future will have terrabytes of storage that cost well under $1k

3. as for wallet security
instead of a mouse/keyboard. imagine having a smartwatch that stores the private key and only ever.. yes ill say it again only ever displays a QR code of a signed tx. and you sweep your arm over a reader much like scanning a can of beans barcode at a grocery checkout.
no need to type in seeds[keyboard logger risk], no need to have on screen prompts asking you to log into accounts[phishing risk].

its one thing many people dont like buying things online and still prefer cash and physical stores. they simply dont like having crucial fund stealable information linked to the internet. so ofcourse separating the tx signing function from the blockchain validating function is the future of security.

you will see in the future yes 'node' will have the facility to broadcast new transactions, but the security of signing it will be things like wearables and mobile devices. after all who wants to walk into a walmart with a desktop pc because they have to, which is what your presuming by saying people ned to use old hardware.
this means people dont need to trust their own node or anyone elses node such as retailer checkout scanners to broadcast their payment
as the node never asks, and never gets the private key/seed

and now for the comedy of some assertions you are trying to push.. it seems as if you are trying to say that blockchains should not scale (yea we know the COREporate reason behind that) and then try to push a myth that computers post say 2005(ill let your friends myth up the practical year) no computer i safe for bing a wallet and such blockchain tech is forever, for the next billions years stuck behind some mythical security risk of said year.

it makes me laugh when people try to say blockchains should not scale due to security risks. when there are EASY work arounds/fixes to the problem. but the COREporate plan is make excuses not to innovate/scale

thre is no law OFCOURSE to say that people need to convert to blockchains. so thats why i avoided answering your obvious question.
but when databases are append orientated rather than edit orientated, and when databases are distributed and need a QUCIK way to compare versions with each other without the checks themselves taking up all the bandwidth/cpu time. then blockchains have many advantages

in the future there will b hybrid database structures that dont quite follow the full definition of a blockchain. but take aspects of the distributed security and check mechanisms and apply them to traditional database models

people are already doing this with things like sharding and other concepts. where its just not one single blockchain containing everyones data but just a summary chain that each region can use to authenticate another region passes certain tests
EG imagine the international fiat reserve(international monetary fund(IMF)) that has the movements of countries total holdings but not listing every bank holders movments within those countries.

people think blockchains have to continuously go on forever.
what people dont realise is blockchains can b invented for just a 365 day use. take the nations tax account. able to validate which government departments and public grant establishments the funds get moved to. and at the end of the year. its summerised and any excess is moved to a new blockchain. where via another blockchain that just summerises the in-out of each year-end/new year budget

but back to your question.
its like you are saying should all fruit be converted to bananas and all fruit should be a curved at a certain angle, yellow with no black spots. as a weird way to then say that bananas are the devils fruit and you think bananas should not be used/accepted in any way, shape or form
because im getting a real big vibe that you simply hate blockchains.. or just yet to understand them even after a couple years oppertunity to research them

transactions in very simple form are like
from(amount)to(amount)signature

the signature is created using privatekey of the from

those making blocks do not make a block and put transactions into it. it is NOT a make a cardboard box then fill it... instead its collate transactions together into a batch and the batch is a block. kinda like harvest the wheat and make a haybale

you then also add the solved block hash of the previous block. thus linking blocks together into a chain
you then make a block hash for your block, in simple terms an ID that is a calculation of all the data in the batch

if you change a transaction you change the blocks ID.
if you change the transactions in previous block or change the previous blocks, the previous ID's wont match and so the one in your block wont match.

so by having the hashes shows the data is valid and not edited as it can be easily checked

then to secure it, the blocks id is sent to special equipment that hash it trillions of times until a new ID comes out of it that has to have a specific number of 0's at the start. the more zeros the harder it is for someone else to try finding the same hash ending

..
so a transaction is a simple piece of data saying where funds came from and going to and proof you have the secret password to the origin funds.
once collected into a group of transactions and added the id of previous block. you then secure your block with a strong id. that way if anyone tries to change the past they have to change everything that happened after that point as the hashes thy have and the hashes you have wont match.

seems many are wrong actually

bitcoin does remain the dominant crypto to talk about and is merchants preference, but that does not show the most widely used or traded.
here is the thing nearly everyone gets wrong.

the numbers found on the screen when looking at exchanges or trade volume sites representing a balance, an order or volume are not cryptos. they are basic database entries 

the very short explanation is. if it didnt happen on the blockchain, it didnt happen.
if your not using the crypto technology then its not crypto your trading.
exchange balance is not a crypto, its a mysql database of ascii numbers that are in no way the same as a crypto.

when you deposit crypto to an exchanges preferred address, the crypto becomes the exchanges. they trade you with giving you some vapour value in their database and you play with that vapour value on their service(NOT USING CRYPTO) and then when your done you make a request to trade the vapour value back for crypto by requesting a withdrawal. it is this point that a crypto trade takes place where on the blockchain you see funds move to an address of the users preference.

and its these stupid lazy out dated database models that are not blockchains, that allow malicious exchange owners and ghost traders to do things like manipulate the price, fake volume or simply just steal the real coins

thats where airgapped wallets will be the future.
imagine a phone as a hardware wallet where the only communication is sending a signed transaction via displaying it as a qr code on screen.
the retailer views the qr code and obviously if the destination address is spoofed the retailer wont accept it to broadcast
common sense, why would a retailer broadcast the customers singed tx if the retailer aint the recipient of funds

its like olden days credit card validation. if a card doesnt pass a luhncheck (math test giving a checksum of the long card number) then the retailer wont even bother connecting to the bank to even bother checking the balance or authorising the payment

also by only ever displaying signed tx, there is no way to transmit the private key thus safer than current wallets. even if a chip is vulnerable if the only display is a signed tx, its not going to cause harm
in short there is a solution to your problem,
i see people using home pc as their networking device to grab a UTXO to scan into a airgapped hand device where the hand device is the wallet

 but this topic wants to talk about speed/size scaling the blocks/validation. which has nothing to do with private key security

you do mention the coin x. and you concentrate on stake coin x, you are describing an altcoin not a second layer. so dont keep describing your system as a second layer.

its important to mention your coin x and your private blockchain of 35 individuals that clubbed togethr to create it as your asking about the security/trust outside customers have in that group.

but with that said as a private blockchain for 35 entities to manage. if they are peered together as independant individuals that do not know, or are not working/friendly with each other. where they are looking for a way to view each others trade history so that they can aggregate funds upon a request then PoS has advantages because if an individual was mischievous then that person would suffer if the penalty is real assets

but here are the issues
the stake needs to be real btc. not the private blockchain coin that are created and destroyed per session at the click of a mouse. as the internal ledger could be messed with, altcoin stake vanishing. because where the person that gained the btc and handed out the altcoin premine at that session is always the winner
EG i can create a altcoin with 6 trillion coins. sell a few to people and then just delete the network leaving customers with nothing but an error. meanwhile i sip martini's on a tropical island bought with peoples btc

those in power must be majority independant and stranger to eachover. because if they were all in some friend/work relationship with each other and offering outside customers a service involving trusting those in power. then there is no point in having PoS as the powerhouse are colluding anyway and the outsider customers have no way to stop them

think about it. who provides the code logic that proves,disproves a signature is valid.. the group. who holds the real btc the group, who has control of the ledger, the group. and all the customer has is an api access to ask/beg for mercy and alot of blind hope/trust that the group are not colluding

its like many private blockchains that want to allow outside customer use, it then requires outside oversight, which normally would be where independant oversight has the majority to prevent the group from just deleting their ledger collectively and leaving customers with an error and no real btc

so after thinking that 8% of americans had crypto (not even 8% of americans invest in gold) .. your now saying crypto is less known than gold..
.. i guess your now of the mindset that your 8% figure was wrong (yep it is definetly wrong)

1. if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.
EG base 1mb weight 32mb.. transactions still around average 2500 a block even if all segwit. what your not realising is the weight is for bloated signature/scripts.. not new transactions

2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing. and its not even complex to do, nor does it need a hardfork to reduce sigops. it can be as a standard release

3. i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..

4. so imagine fiat, with a country doing a bankrun. imagine thousands of people turn up to a bank branch wanting their funds withdrawn but the bank says. sorry folks not today as walmart cam along and used up all of our transfer allotments.
do you really think people will think thats fair and just walk home happy. do you think a decentralised payment network should be designed in preference to centralised custodians,,

seems to me you dont care about bitcoins ethos and purpose you just sound like someone that just wants to let core do as they please and screw the community that may actually want to use btc as a medium of exchange

and that word "free market" you core fanboys seen to really love reading them out dated core speaches and reciting their buzzwords.. please atleast find some new material. that "free market" chestnut has been around for years and its convincing no one

im surprisd too.. especially when there are only under 30million addresses valued over $1 used for the whole bitcoin network.
so if your saying 8% of americans have btc. then the other 200 countries must only have like a few hundred people using it...

i could then say, ha ha ha that disproves the myths that 'china owns btc'..
i could then say, ha ha ha that disproves the myths that 'btc international currency'..

but the truth is more so that the number of americans using bitcoin is much lower
though not so accurate if you look at the node distribution by country, as a flimsy bases for possible populate stats
1   United States   (25.42%)
2   Germany           (20.66%)
3   France           (6.51%)
4   Netherlands   (5.24%)
5   China           (3.59%)
6   Singapore           (3.42%)
7   Canada           (3.38%)
8   United Kingdom   (3.29%)
9   Russian Federation (2.52%)
10   Japan           (2.06%)

then out of the 30million addresses of value america is only 25% meaning 7.5million people = 2% population
whereas from the 30million addresses of value germany has 20% of network nodes, meaning 6million people = 7% population

thus suggesting bitcoin is more popular in germany

ofcourse some of them addresses of small amount can be held by just one person so number of people having coin over $1 value could be far less than 30million worldwide. but saying that 30million of just americans have btc.. is a stretch based on the number of addresses with funds

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how...  go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

here is a real tip for you
did you know at the millenium, people thought this device was science fiction

yet guess what by the time kids watching that sci-fi show grew to be adults it became reality


..
oh wait, i think i can predict the next joke of your comedy routine.
the joke about how you want/think very NEEDS to b a full node. but the punchline being you actually prefer people to move over to another network where users only use lite wallet and entrust "factories" to manage it.
its funny because its you and your friends that want centralisation. your even dad against competing dev teams

and another joke i predict from you will be trying to return to the joke about huge jumps in on go, to avoid talking about scaling and try to make it sound like people want huge leaps by midnight.. again please learn scaling, learn tech progression, learn the stats of how fast a block actually takes to be validated and relayed per peer... atleast try to research independantly

try to look into block propagation time (hint: its seconds not minutes to reach majority network)

too many people think bitcoin will in 20-40 years ned to run on $1000 desktop computer or $100,000 servers.
just like they thought mining bitcoin would go from CPU to needing a $100,000 server
the reality is you can get something that mines btc the physical size of a shoe box that is 1billion times faster than a cpu/gpu, thus no server scenario. as people can still individually buy asics and run them from home

same will happen with node hardware. people will start producing hardware specific for being a node. with th benefit of not having to worry about hash competition of trying to outpace other nodes
just take how fast mining hardware changed.
2013. GPU $600 1ghash
2019. ASIC $27 1,000,000ghash ($1430/53thash)

just imagine how many transactions can be verified using an asic chip designed specifically to validate signatures. and a device had multiple chips to allow multiple transaction validity at once.

altcoins/ other networks are not second layer.
playing with X coin or millisats is not playing with btc.

the whole term 'second layer' is just some crap PR drummed up to try to say their network should get the same fame as btc, but without earning it the hard way BTC did over 10 years.

take this topics proposal. people need to BUY the stake X coin
basically saying all altcoins should be 'second layer' of btc [facepalm]

whats next start calling a banknote from the 19th century actual gold in paper form...?

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

the reason i laugh is the core fan camp are the ones that keep throwing around the term 'gigabytes by midnight' meaning they are not talking about scaling they are trying to say those that want scaling 2,4,8,16,32.. dont want scaling but want 'gigabytes by midnight'

sorry windy but please do your research. physics actually proves that scaling is possible.
oh and one other thing. the numbers involved in the massive debate on the first step forward for scaling was just 2mb base.. which if you done some research is far far below the limits of modern/current computers. so please do your research and stop your false mantra of 'centralisation coz servers'

remember this. 50 years ago people got to the moon using computers that only had the power of what we now use in cheap plastic calculators you can buy from staples stores for $2.
we have moved on from back then. these days a phone the size of a calculator has more power than a dsktop PC from the millenium

please just stop repeating your friends comedy scripts like a bad standup with no original material. try to actually do some independant thinking

(here is a hint. by the time bitcoin needs the processing power of a current server.. that system when needed will be found in a smart phone that fits in your pocket.)
(here is another hint. ets take iphone 3, released in 2008 and available in 8gb,16gb,32gb.. iphone 11 available in 64,128,256
yep technology has not just improved x2,not x4, but yes x8)

coinbase and abra are owned by the same company. so get restricted on one means get restricted on the other by default as they share info/use same internal system

to get full list of services that are partnered with coinbase/abra: https://dcg.co/portfolio/
this way you can save yourself time by not registering with these services that will restrict you quickly

picture means nothing.. people can have lots of small holdings that all add up.

also. seems the OP is just looking to brand some new title before its even special/exclusive
if so, shoulda been more creative.. like fiats '3 comma club' rather than billionaires club

1. not fixed. people can still use legacy transactions which still have the problem of bloating up a block
2. those wanting to bloat a block wont use segwit.
3. its like having a gun free neighbourhood but advertising it as removing all guns across the world and solving gun murders.. sorry advert doesnt meet reality
4. 'groups/crowds' dont deserve a whole block to themselves of only 5 tx's if people want to be paid it should be done as multiple batches. core dont want individuals to use bitcoin, they prefer large organisations to have access and let the other little people use other networks.
5. reducing the maxtxsigops limit is the most simplest solution. yet they wont.
6. even now they wont raise the baseblock because the quadratics is is not fixed.. wake up