i am 100% a bitcoiner
the issue is too many people think CORE is bitcoin.

i dont mean cash is bitcoin.
i mean no one should be bitcoin

i am not a cash promoter, i dont spend it i dont use it i dont mine it.
i simply dislike the devs of core.

if you can separate the human devs from bitcoin core network.. because its those devs who are saying bitcoin is broke, cant scale and ln is the future. you will understand
i dislike the human core devs

but i am 100% in and devoted to the bitcoin core network

.. as we can see. the core devs are not perfect. they had a bug in the code for 2 years that not only caused the same assert() crash that they dramatised against BU last year. but the bug core devs introduced 2 years ago can actually cause EXCESS coin creation

so i say this (remember this is about the monarchistic team not the network)

can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

diversity + distribution = decentralised network
distribution alone does not = decentralisation

(expect my post to get deleted as its not core friendly)

can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

expect drama similar to last years assert() but this time core being on the receiving end
and may core react as the opposite side of the argument of last years assert() drama last year

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

diversity + distribution = decentralised network
distribution alone does not = decentralisation

(expect my post to get deleted as its not core friendly)

the government approves already.
by not disapproving!!

we dont need regulations.
regulations are for businesses to monitor, police and tell and limit what customers can do with their own funds.
we dont need regulations

we need consumer protections.
which are penalties for businesses who wish to steal,, run off or pretend they were hacked. that way business owners cant easily retire with people funds.

i really wish people learned the difference between regulations and consumer protections..
but here is a short lesson..

how much help did regulations ever do during the 2007-8 crises!
banks were regulated but still screwed millions of people

regulations are not a badge of trust. its a rusty sherrifs badge of authority that allows them to police normal people but allows them to be corrupt unpunished. and also get to do it because people WRONGLY think a sherrifs badge is a badge of honour

$20bill is only 300k btc

reading the article and letting it swirl in my mind like the coffee in my mouth..

with the winklevoss ETF they have 200k sat there sidelined. but they as the article says because the ETF will be over $150k of customer assets they will be offering will need to have a institutional 'custodian' for their 200k coins. rather than them just settling themselves up as a 'trust' which was their first filing years ago.

so thats 200k covered, and so i think its more than another 100k coins set aside waiting

and now its just a race for the best custodian service that SEC will honour as being institutionally high calibre worthy of being intrusted with billions of $$ of coins.

..
any way we all know the winklevoss and other non institutional ETF plans wont get green lit easily. those in authority already have their short list of best buddies who are nearly ready with their institutional services to grab the 'first mover' advantage of bitcoin trusts/custodies and investment funds

im thinking goldman and jp morgan are front runners
goldmans ceo recently done a techcrunch interview. and the buzzwords were not about margin trading or investment comities or trading algorithm's.. it was about risk management and security when talking about future services they will aim for. so they are prepping to ride the custodian gravy train

his mindset was not really about staying hidden and worried about authorities arresting him for counterfeiting. yea it was a concern in 2008-2009 for him. but it wasnt why he left in 2010-2011. he wasnt so much caring about identity.
for instance he never commented to halfinney, mike hearne, gavin andressen, etc that they should be careful about using their real names.

parts of his final few months were more about not wanting to be the head decision maker he didnt want to review peoples code and vet what should go in or not. he didnt want the fame/leader role. he didnt want to be the go to guy. he wanted people to develop their own code and work as united to discuss the best options available and to develop code that would acivate if everyone (majority) used it

so i dont think he will come back and try to declare leadership. if anything he is probably already involved some where offering tips and tweaking code or spotting bugs or submitting proposals like other do. but just using a new pseudonym

firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...

get them foolish idea's out of your head.
the idea is water is already up stream by this funny thing called the weather....
it all goes downstream
but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM

by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.

the reason parker and davis dont make as much is because they are bureaucratically not allowed to be as big as the lake preceding hoover damn.

again not physics.. but politics is the restraint
luckily china and other countries dont have the same political problems as a nevada/arizona debates.


the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river

the amount of electricity produced is enough for there not to be a NEED. so the priority politically of more electric vs other things the rivers are used for have not had a need to sway the debate.


it is feasible. its just not needed.
EG in 1920's only X electric was needed. so only hoover and parker was made.. lots of fighting over if should they be made happened back then..
...
1950's demand rose. but wait.. stompix says it cant happen there just aint enough..
i imagine stompix having a vision of the river is saying "im trying captain im giving it all she got(scotty startrek)"
 but then miraculously. davis dam was build.. OMG how is that possible. stompix must have asked himself
.. the answer
because politicians weighed up the politics of relocating people, cost to build. vs the real need of more electric. and it was decided. its worth the cost.(physics was not the problem


actually you will find this mindset strange but.
when a miner is willing to pay $6k to mine 1btc. what he also sees is he is commited to $6k for a year. because he has already prepaid the asics and the electric equivelent to that for a year

now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week

now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...

heres a thought for you
if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)
then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that..  so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'

sorry but no. it dont work like that.

if you get a salary. and then suddenly get a pay rise. if your just going to use your pay rise to work even harder always chasing the oppertunity and hope of a pay rise.. then thats you stuck in a perpetual cycle of only ever 'living to work'..
smart people keep the profit. and go on vacation. invest in things. treat their kids to new toys and gadgets. renovate their homes.
if you got a 3x payrise and you only use that to then do 3x more work.. i feel sorry for your family

you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)

they would go on vacation. and keep at their slower progressive hashrate..

ill give you a hint. sustainable price rises that dont crash is due to mining pushing up prices and then buying up coin if the price goes down...
not where the price makes the hashrate jump.

heres another hint.
october 2013 happened because miners pushed the price up becaus everything switched from GPU to ASICS.
asic miners were making a profit and going on holiday. GPU miners cried as they couldnt profit gpu mining. so they just bought coin..
(bitcoin history asics released october 2013)

now the december 2017 spike (caused by banking institutions buying up coin to settle with certain bitcoin entities contracts that completed midnovember) the spike of that buyup DID NOT cause mining pools to ramp up their hashrate to 120 terrahash in december.

again price does not ramp up hashrate. but hashrate does ramp up sustainable price...

1. yes
2. that would help. but looking at the devs proposals they don't want to break legacy transactions as thats another hard fork (oops i mean another mandatory ban/reject or else convoluted threat pretending to be a 'soft USAF)
and only looking to soft fork schnorr in to be used by segwit multisigs (only multisigs benefit anyway. and modifying segwit multisigs are easier to trojan in modifications than it is to modify legacy multisigs(3*(emphasize legacy 3* not the segwit version of same prefix))

3. if its segwit, signatures sit outside the 1mb base

(i tried not to go math anal in previous posts) or be too biased. or be too complicated.. but here goes (sorry to say this)
as for the block that you mentioned at the time of you posting
out of the 606kb only 102kb sat outside the baseblock (16% data)

oh and doing more math
a legacy 1in 2 out is ~225byte
a segwit  1in 2 out is ~250byte

yeo ~25 byte difference.
the reason being that a segwit signature is ~80 bytes not 70(82 vs 72 to be more exact)

and the input address bc1q uses a few EXTRA bytes (plus a few other details that waste a few bytes)
yep they are making signatures/addresses more bloated (i laugh when they say they words like 'efficient' leaner')
just to swap and twist things around to be able to move signatures.

but this whole game they are playing is not for scaling onchain purposes.. but for transaction formats that are compatible with LN
LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network that many coins will use. (something most dont realise and just co-brand it with bitcoin to give it attention)

anyway.. knowing that segwit adds bytes to inout addresses and signatures

i did further maths. and converted all the inputs and outputs to be just regular 1*addresses byte usage instead of bc1q* byte usage
and i also brought the actual segwit signature back to regular legacy (72 as oppose to 82)
(note yes i went anal and only touched the addresses/signatures that were segwit... i wasnt lazy to just deduct Xbytes from all inputs outputs and signatures.)

and guess what.
the 1495 tx block you mentioned would only be 540kb. if segwit did not exist
so although the data as it sits in the block on the network with mix of legacy and segwit has
504kb in base and 102kb in witness area,
if segwit did not exist. that same data of number of inputs, outputs, sigs would sit at 540kb total (not 606k total)
meaning. the "omg segwit saved 102k in base.." is actually
OMG saved 40kb in base but added 102kb into witness

yea. that data would have only been 540kb if all were legacy
so the base block saving is only actually 40kb

kinda funny when you look at it from that perspective, right..

so a 1495 tx block. where the base saving is only 40k. is less than 10% actual scaling utility

hope the math or the explanation hasnt confused you

but hey..
if you think its still good to celebrate the OP's title that 2.26mb only = a couple hundred transactions.. then you've missed all the issues with "2.26mb for only a couple hundred transactions".. to me thats NOT something to be proud of

1. i mean transactions where if one input(UTXO) out of say 4input(UTXO). the whole transaction is classed as a segwit transaction instead of 0.25. then out of all transactions over one block or one day or one week whatever they say 40% are segwit and 60% have no segwit inputs at all

however. if they done it properly and said of all inputs(UTXO) being spent of (what the currently call a segwit tx) only 25% of a transaction is actually segwit.. then the result would be only 10% of all inputs(UTXO) being spend either per block or per day or per year, whatever would only segwit utilised

2, the halt on removing/increasing the base block limit is not about scaling bitcoin. its about making different networks famous by making bitcoin look bad enough that people should use other networks
for instance. 2 years have been wasted on features not to scale bitcoin. but to push people into using other networks.
yep 2 years to twist bitcoin to work with LN (ln is not a bitcoin feature. but a separate network for multiple coins to use in the future where LN will be seen as the payment tool for bitcoin and litecoin.

bitcoins whole purpose was that you dont need counterparties. you dont need the counterparties to be awake and responsive and requiring their authorisation to make payments..

but while 2 years+ have passed of doing nothing else but keep bitcoin where it is and just tweak bitcoin to be compatible with that separate network. nothing has been done to scale bitcoin.

banks lock in funds and they have control of the funds. they can freeze your account, make you wait 3-5 days to send a wire. chargeback, etc.. many issues

LN is a separate network from bitcoin and is a proposed solution. but being a separate network it need. locking in funds, counterparty control. the counterpart can go offline thus freezing your funds. makes you wait before you can close a channel without penalty.. they can chargeback(revocation) and the destination needs to be online as well as all the middle men inbetween to all using the payment is done. .
oh and you will need to have multiple channels(accounts) splitting your funds up as a way to mitigate risk of lack of routing. meaning many onchan tx's/outpt bytes to deposit into each.... thus many issues

again LN is not a bitcoin feature but its own separate network.

a good solution for those screaming:
"bitcoin is broke it doesnt scale"
"bitcoin is broke it cant pay for coffee on bitcoin"
is this

imagine LN concept of preplanning spending and moving funds in before spending... but without LN. no need to lock funds up into coparty accounts(channels) who can go offline before spending your money. no need to have multiple channels where your funds are spread.

instead
you simply preplan spending habits.
you simply pay starbucks a months worth of coffee onchain, in one transaction. and they update starbucks app with a month of coffee credit. job done

alot of hype and speculation can temporarily move the price. but i always like to look at the underlying cost of obtaining coins

ethereum is not at a 10% rate of production per coin. (mining) so obviously wont get the 1:10 ratio of
btc$6k :$600eth

its more like a 1:30 ratio for underlying costs. which when looking at the market price. shows to also be correct.
yea there might be temporary events where btc went to 20k and foolishly sheep traders, trade patterned eth up via arbitrage although there was no real world cause to give eth reason to climb outside the arbitrate cycle.
and yes eth jumped to $300 .. but all of that was temporary drama

these last few months btc underlying costs have been testing $6k
these last few months eth underlying costs have been testing $200
anything else is just market driven speculation/profitering/hype

..
many have found that the mining costs(minimum(cheap electric)) is a good metric to use for the bottomline.
miners wont sell for less. and if they can buy bitcoin on a market below their mining costs. they will. which keeps the market price above mining costs a large percentage of the time. (only a couple occasions in a year did is slip below and only by a few dollar

so when you take the medium term mining cost as your underlying line of value. you then see when the price is highly hyped or very little hype and right now both btc and eth are not that highly hyped.
unlike eth's january and may period
unlike btc's winter period

debt.
pay down any debt on a variable rate first. when a recession hits that rate will go up and kick you over and over

if fixed. then as long as its low interest. relax. thats great. when inflation hits your repayments get 'cheaper'
EG if $10 a month interest buys you 10 loaves this month.. in hyper-inflation it will only buy you 1 loaf so why pay 10 loaves this month that you can pay off with 1 loaf later.

but again if you have variable interest rates. get that paid down first.

another option. if your not employed you could just put all your eggs hidden away into crypto. and then file bankruptcy.thus kick the debt out of your life and give yourself a clean slate. (its what trump and the clintons do)
or atleast threaten to go bankrupt and arrange freezing interest and lowering the debt to something you and your creditor can agree on

(best check with a financial adviser how it will affect your life for next few years(hide your crypto well))

then try to only make financial decisions based on amounts you consider disposable. EG if you spend $30 a week on fast food that just end up as a toilet flush the next day after digesting.. then use $30 as funds you dont care to lose

satoshi's client was called satoshi-QT.. even core call it that now https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/
bitcoin core is the buzzword brandname of the team that came about in 2013. 2-3 years after satoshi left the community.
(its like people say something is using apple software, but underneath the codebase is called IOS ver x.x)

the history:
satoshi's own client 2009-2010, before he left was only stored and upgraded code via sourceforge not the github

it was gavins client of 2010 which is the github that everyone followed and now follows. satoshi never touched the github

gavin was pushed aside as project manager in 2013. but he already mentioned many time he was only going to give it X years before moving aside. so it was a planned retirement from the github anyway.

then the team moderating, deciding the rules branded their team bitcoin core from 2013

nope. bcause theres a few hundred nodes(10%) that were not core 0.14-0.16.2 even before 24 hours ago...
meaning if 90% were 0.14-0.16.2 now with 10% of those are now 0.16.3 thats only 80% that are stil 0.14-0.16.3


the network was not 100% 0.14-0.16.2 (though those few hundred nodes outside of the risk are still sheep to core in other ways)

however we need to make it more like 20-50% all the time diversity.. not 90%
and we need to make it so that core is less of a kingdom/monarchy and bring back diverse consensus.
dare i say it without getting the or defenders riled up

we need diverse decentralisation to return.. not biased distribution which is what we have been experiencing for the majority of 2013-2018

edit:
technically the older nodes(blow 0.14) shouldnt cound as they are not part of the 'inner circle' of the kingdom or being a block/transaction relayer. they are more defined as the 'downstream(gmax buzzword)' or 'filtered nodes(lukeJR buzzword)' on a outer circle of the network.
so crazy craig. your right the percentage i quoted of 80% is technically higher if you brush the older nodes out of the stats

the bug causes nodes to crash. a patch has been released /core client update released. but that does not mean that its solved.
people need to download the software. and run it

right now only 10% of the network is using 0.16.3
meaning over 80% of the network is still at risk

again 80% of the network is still at risk. this its not fixed. its just made available a tool that can fix it.
imagine it like an engine. engineers found the issues needs a special spanner to fix it. they made the spanner but now people need to use the spanner to fix it.

anyway the deeper issue is we need to decentralise the 'reference client' to stop being the center. there needs to be a change of mindset and to allow other teams to make their own clients that work onchain in consensus without being treated as attacking a king.
get rid of the kingdom and instead allow united states on the same level playing field. that way there would be diversity on the network and no 80-90% network dropping scenario

again the area outside the 1mb area is just for signatures and more precisely just signatures of segwit addresses
for non segwit INPUTS the signature of it sits inside the 1mb BASE BLOCK
for segwit inputs the signature sits outside
but in both cases the input and outs, values etc still sit inside the 1mb

EG imagine one tx of 4 inputs
1Am4deup4ddr3555
bc1qM4d3up4ddr355
1Am4deup4ddr3555
1Am4deup4ddr3555

only 1 signature sits outside the 1mb output. yet the people that do stats of sgwit utility would treat that tx as 1 segwit tx. when reality shows it as 0.25 segwit

as for the byte for byte movement
they want to make it feel like the transaction is 4x smaller inside the 1mb area.. (the fake news that it can fit 4x more transactions) the reality is that there is less than 72byte decrease in the 1mb area

im not gonna go full anal precise math..
ill just give you an example where we say a signature is 70 bytes and the whole tx is 630bytes
                                                  1mb  base          3mb witness
4x legacy inputs                     |       630bytes     |       000bytes      |
3x legacy 1 segwit inputs        |       560bytes     |       070bytes      |
2x legacy 2 segwit inputs        |       490bytes     |       140bytes      |
1x legacy 3 segwit inputs        |       420bytes     |       210bytes      | *
4x segwit inputs                     |       350bytes     |       280bytes      | **

now here is the thing
the most leanest 1in 1 out is about 180bytes (again im simplying)
*you can fit in 1 lean segwit or 1 lean legacy
**you can fit in 1 lean legacy or 2 lean segwit
but you cant fit in  another tx of the same 4input size as above
so although there is 4x space. its not 4x capacity

now what the OP's example done was use multisigs imagine each input was a 2sig multisig meaning the first 4xlegacy input is now 910 byte (again over simplifying)
                                                  1mb  base          3mb witness
4x legacy inputs                     |       910bytes     |       000bytes      |
3x legacy 1 segwit inputs        |       770bytes     |       140bytes      |*
2x legacy 2 segwit inputs        |       630bytes     |       280bytes      |**
1x legacy 3 segwit inputs        |       490bytes     |       420bytes      |***
4x segwit inputs                     |       350bytes     |       560bytes      |****

as you can see. now if all inputs were segwit and were multisig. you could fit in another
*1 lean 1in1out segwit tx
**1 lean 1in 1out legacy tx or 2 lean 1in1out segwit tx
***3 lean 1in 1out legacy tx or 3 lean 1in1out segwit tx or 1 4in segwitmultisig tx
****3 lean 1in1out legacy... or 4 lean 1in1out segwit.. or ... 1 4insegwitmultig tx with 1 lean 1in 1out segwit

but here is the thing.. to be able to get the 4 lean 1in 1out segwit. it requires the bloated segwit multisig
you will not gt another 3 or 4 tx's in if the other transactions were lean or standard to begin with.


ill explain
imagine the whole block was the lean legacy 1i1o (180bytes each)
max transactions = 5555 tx (kep this number in mind)
no block has ever been 5555tx. because not everyone uses the compressed keys of single 1in 1out
anyway
if the whole block was lean segwit 1i1o (110base 70witness)
max transactions = 9090tx  (not 4x capacity, not even 2x capacity) base=1mb witness=0.636btc (1.636mb weight)

imagine the whole block was 4in1out legacy but not multisig(630byte each)
max transactions = 1587tx
if the whole block was segwit 4i1o not multisig
max transactions = 2857tx (again not even 2x)
..
but here is the statistics cheat
lets take just 1587 4in1ou.. mak then all segwit.. and then throw in loads of lean 1in1o segwit
max transactions = 1587 4in tx  AND 4041 lean segwit 
so thats 5628 transactions  which is base=1mb winess=0.727mb witness (1.727 weight)
and as you can see not 4x capacity of the same format but just 3x of leaned small tx. (and thats the trick)

now lets do the multisig (910 bytes)
legacy multisig=1090 transactions
segwit multisig=2857 transactions
(as you can see thats 2.8x but only if the whole block is as such. but its only 2857 tx.. not 5555tx or 9090tx )
so although it looks like a bloated multig can get you 2.8x simply by converting every tx to segwit.. there is less tx to start with
anyway. lets take the 1090 multisigs. convert them to 1090 segwit multisig and then fill the spare space with lean 1i10 segwit just to do the same stats cheat
1090 sw multig + 5622lean = 6712 transactions. which is base=1mb witness=1mb (2mb weight)

so although it apears that your getting in 4x transactions. thats not 4x transactions of similar type.
and its not 4x transactions of the 5555tx of lean block.

its like imagine a bus of adults.. kick 1 adult out.. another adult gets a seat. but this time they are saying. noo lets let in 4 midgets to twist the statistics

where as the reality is real use of real tx's are not lean and there will never be ample supply of midgets

yet. if the block was 4mb of space for legacy to use.
you would get
4mb full use= 22,222 lean 1i1o transactions
4mb full use= 6349 of 4i1o transactions. (as oppose to 2857 in the segwit base|witness split)
4mb full use= 4395 of 4i10 multisig transactions (as oppose to the 2857 in the segwit base|witness split)

summary
you get more transactions in (without lean trickery to up tx count) per byte via a 4mb full access block rather than the base|witness limitation of a same pseudo 4mb 'weight'

in short get rid of the 1mb base limit so all transactions can really and properly use the 4mb 'weight' and then we can have more transactions
and yes. we can mix some of the multisigs and lean tx's to get more than 6349 and 4395 tx's listed just above the summary to also play the tricks and get closer to 20,000 transactions

i done loads of math..
but if you are talking about schnorr being used in the OP's example. well th tx count would still be the same but the 'weight' (bit above the 1mb will be less
schnorr wont affect tx count. schnorr only reduces signatures of. SEGWIT transactions

bitcoin does not need regulations.
regulations are where authorities get businesses to spy and police customers. in short giving businesses a sherrifs badge of authority. which some people treat as a badge of honour or trust.. but reality is there are still corrupt police around. after all how did regulating banks protect people in the 2007-8 crisis.

we need CONSUMER PROTECTION. where we, users. get to due diligence and KYC the businesses and we get to police the businesses. especially because those businesses will be getting our coins.

regulations: let businesses tell customers what customers can and cant do with our money
consumer protections: lets users vet and challenge and tell businesses what businesses should do with our money

i find it funny that people advocate for regulations.. complete mystery why

---

... using your coffee payment question
things like using LN are stupid. to use it you need to
lock funds up.. (involves pre-planning spending habits)
when locked up it requires other people so sign for the funds (no longr 100% owned as its co-authorised)
it also needs splitting funds into many channels to have a better chance of routing(increases bytes per tx)

in short to pay for 10 coffees in LN you end up doing a tx of 5 outputs to 5 channels to lock in. and when exiting with your 'change'(left overs) it requires 5 transactions of 2in 2out each. signed by 2 parties)

add up the bytes used for all that....

now how about knowing you got to lock in funds(preplan)..
how about.. (wait for the shocking idea)
just paying starbucks a bartab of 10 coffees. a tx of 1 input 1 output. and then starbucks updates your starbucks app balance...
job done. 1 onchain tx.. and you get your 10 coffee's.. job done no counterparty signatures, no multi channels no routing no hoping everyone is online. just 1tx and you have credit for 10 coffees.. end of

ok heres a lesson for you both
the 1mb limit still exists in the bitcoin core network.
transaction data needs to sit in the 1mb limit. but Segwit lets signatures sit outside.
the reason the block in this topics example is what it is.. is because alot of signature data sits outside the 1mb area. but.. that leaves space inside the 1mb are.. hense why the OP's example only has a few hundred transactions as oppose to a couple thousand

schnorr will reduce the amount of signatures thus bring down only the witness area weight. but it still does not sort out the limitation of the 1mb area

what needs to happen is completely remove the 1mb limit so all the legacy transaction data can utilise the entire 4mb weight. which then means we actually get more transaction capacity per mb (4x with a true no hidden sublimit, 4mb block)

the math was already done and the consensus is if EVERY transaction was a LEAN SEGWIT. the best hope would be 2.1x increase of transactions.

but at the moment it still sits at only 10% segwit utility.
(i know people will say its 40%. but thats not the case. the graph showing such treats a mixed tx of legacy and segwit as a full segwit which misleads the reality of real statistics)

in short. if schnorr was used the OP's example would still only be a couple hundred transactions but the weight outside the 1mb limit would be less.
meaning schnorr is not scaling. is unbloating the bloat of the 'witness' area

funny guy
but logic is not your friend here
no where in the example is showing the watr going back upstream
in short im not perpetually drinking my own pee.
in short whats happening is its a chain gang oral sex orgy of golden shower.
someone below me drinks mine. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
someone below them drinks from the middle person. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
(p.s.. i never was into golden showers and using this analogy made me cringe.. may i never use this analogy again. but i hope it atleast sparked the idea in easy form for others to understand.)

now take one more look at the picture of the chain of reservoirs/dams...
now going from left to right i shall name them for you.

be aware...(shock warning)
once i name them you can google it. and see that its not perpetual nor is it a fantasy dream. and it is infact possible
left: hoover dam
middle Davis dam
right Parker dam

PS. if davis and parker didnt exist. colorado would make 18% less power
and davis and parker can expand..