gmaxwell has a trick up his sleeve..
he can cause a hardfork to get a softfork activated. by deliberately orphaning blocks that oppose segwit. not because the block data is bad.. but purely because its not voting in favour of segwit.


so funny that blockstream/core said that all the segwit data was good and backward compatible. but now suggesting everyone should upgrade to be full nodes and that they can even orphan off blocks to get their way(hard fork)..

if the data was truely backward compatible there should be no reason to orphan.. thats the point of why a softfork was promoted and how it was promised to the community. to not cause disruption by/of orphans.

my personal number that i think is safe differs to blockstreams 95%..
but i only mentioned 95% because blockstream would send in the usual intern centralist bandwaggon if i said anything different. so to avoid argument i just used their numbers so they cant argue..

anyway,
when user nodes set their settings the consensus is measured and the pools are the ones that decide when to push out blocks with the least risk.
yes pools choose when, as its in their interest to not lose $12k in 10minutes.

logically even if there is a clear majority (pick random number of majority all you like).. pools will then do their own flagging of intent.

EG imagine nodes new limit will be 1.3mb by large majority consensus.. then pools flag also has majority consensus to say yes too..
but when activating it.. they are going to be smart.

first block after activation... 1.001mb then slowly get to the 1.3mb over time
they are not irrationally going to push out a 1.3mb block the very next block after activation. they will test the water.
it might take 2 days and 2 hours(0.001mb) increments per block(2days *144blocks per day=288+12blocks in 2hours =300 adjustments) to see the orphan risk as it climbs to 1.3mb new limit.

thats the logical and safe way.

no point giving roger Ver the blame or fame. Ver only had ~10% so dont let blockstream make you believe Ver alone..

it's the other 65% that were not in agreement with blockstream aswell...
but we all know blockstream are gonna ply lots of investors with alcohol and free drinks in miami this month. so we will soon see if those investors linked to mining farms suddenly change their minds after a bit of blockstream ass kissing

seriously??

you been fanboying core for a year and you dont know where the 95% i mentioned originated..
it was core that set the bar so high.

but have a nice day

most EU/UK debit cards are actually bank account cards. so exchanges would ask you to wire transfer them funds using that facility of your bank account. rather than using the long mastercard number.

electric is not the issue. its the cost of buying the asic.

EG ~$450 electric(USA)...  asic $2100

its the asic that puts a real dent into ROI for miners.
you have to be an asic manufacturer making a rig for $400 just to break even.. we all know antpool is doing it and loving it.

united nations of hyperledger..

using the median and then finding a random size after that is foolish
imagine your numbers..
randomly saying that 25%=1.375mb.. no.. 1.2    1.2    1.3 are all excluded . meaning its 30% node drop/orphan risk based on 1.375mb figure
randomly saying that 40%=1.84mb..  yes.. 1.2   1.2    1.3  1.6 are all excluded . meaning its 40% node drop/orphan risk based on 1.84mb figure

where and why would you choose a random number of 1.375 or 1.84 is another variable of debate.. afterall to a 2mb node(next number after 1.6mb) will be wondering why halt at 1.87mb if no one is saying they cant cope with 1.88-1.99.

there is too much iffyness and orphan risk of medians.
especially the way you played around after, to get your magic numbers.

now i think about it. its not "least common figure", i was thinking of.  its to sort the amounts into ascending order.. take off 5% of results from smallest end.. and then whatever the lowest number of what is left is the acceptable (lowest of 95% is the new buffer size)
EG

1     1.2     1.2     1.2     1.3     1.3     1.6     1.6     2     2     3      3      5     5      6     6      8      8      17     17

also where you said 1 node can hold it up. i said 5% so based on 5000 nodes, more than 250 nodes would need to hold at 1mb to hold it up. not just one node.


people can have a PHD in anything.. bitcoin physics and theoretic's is not covered in their syllabus. also some have had PHD's before the millenium so dont expect the tech they learned about is the same tech available today.. IT PhD's get outdated faster than most peoples wives.

dont ideally trust someone because of qualifications.. without understanding what that qualification actually taught or didnt teach.
do you even know when these PhD guys even got their qualifications and what technologies were available at the time.

he may mean display his address publicly but have a private admin page to se progress.

or he may mean private as in personal.. meaning not hosted on some service people need to visit. but his own personal site

the numbers for average txbytes over 8 years has changed. EG 2009 was under 250 and it become more over time.

the numbers of the OP's data in the spreadsheet is only numbers of 1m tx's which is well under 500 blocks = less than a week of data so its not going to reveal much long term change just short term.

i did do a few selective averages of
0-335k tx's  = 447byte
335k-666k tx's =473byte
666k-1m tx's =454byte

and they all average about 447bytes - 473bytes


using old legacy transactions
((148 * inputsused) + (34 * outputs used) ) +-10 variance = tx size estimate

as for multisigs. well that a whole different calculation to work out the bytes of a tx, as there are more variables involved
im sure someone else has found a workable calculation to work it out for multisigs.
but to answer your question. multisigs do use more bytes per tx.. if you were to compare a 2in 2out multsig to a 2in 2out legacy tx

oh and lets not forget LN's settlments which will also include extra bytes for CLTV and CSV data will bloat a tx even if its still just a 2in 2out.
yep segwit suggests more tx space but then LN settlements then refill that space with larger tx's..

that calculation is at 2015/2016 calculations. (motherboard.vice article wrote march 2016 using data from before that date)

here is an update using hashrate of this week

today's hashrate converts to at most 200,000 S9 ASICS (<2.6m Thash)

at 1.3kwh per asic =260000kwh (260mw)

asia's 5cent electric = $13,000 an hour
USA's 10cent electric = $26,000 an hour
UK's 20cent electric= $52,000 an hour

asia's 5cent electric = $312,000 a day
USA's 10cent electric = $624,000 a day
UK's 20cent electric= $1,248,000 a day

asia's 5cent electric = $113,880,000 a year
USA's 10cent electric = $227,760,000 a year
UK's 20cent electric= $455,520,000 a year

enjoy

by the way UK miners are rare.. so world combined electric cost per year is between $113m-$227m
much less than last years estimate

first you can get total balance of the address here
https://blockchain.info/q/addressbalance/<insert address>
this will give you balance in satoshis.

so divide it by 100,000,000 to get how many bitcoin you have

and then you can get the dollar price of a whole bitcoin
https://blockchain.info/q/24hrprice

and do the math to get dollar value of balance

balance * price

then you do the math of your target

(100 / target) * dollar balance

and then use any common website progress bar code for the code that the front end (user) will see

blockchains have been around alot longer then people think. but how satoshi utilised it made it innovative.

kind of like wheels have been around thousands of years. but how the first combustion engine maker utilised it made vehicles revolutionary(as the wheels and round turning cogs/gears concept inside engine)

so although (when you peal off all the add-on features satoshi patched together PoW, hashing, transaction cryptography, etc..) the blockchain concept is very simple and not revolutionary (data linked to other data(blocks of data chained to other blocks)).. blockchain does open up a new direction of possibilities.

so is blockchain innovation yes
so is blockchain revolutionary no

so is bitcoin innovation yes
so is bitcoin revolutionary yes

median.. hell no..

for instance if it was median. 4 out of 10 would be fut off and not syncing.

what it would be is as it already is.. is the common least denominator
meaning using your numbers it would stick to 1.. (like today we already have a few nodes at 2->16

but imagine people slightly adjusted numbers as time went on
EG
1.2       2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6
pools will now make blocks at 1.2
then
EG
1.5       2        1.5        5        17        3        6        8        1.5        1.6
pools will now make blocks at 1.5
then
EG
1.7       2        1.7        5        17        3        6        8        1.7        1.7
and each time.. EVERYONE is happy


or for instance if there were more results than just 10 (eg over 5000)
1.2       2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6
1          2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6

where 95% wanted 1.2 min but there was 5% holding back at 1.
then pools would weigh up the need for more buffer vs orphan risk (5% lagger) and then decide to push on for more and leave the lagger behind having to tweak their setting up to be part of the network or left unsyncing (standard 95% consensus even core/blockstream think is acceptable)


the benefits of segwit are exaggerated. the most foolish thing is letting someone make a TX with 20,000sigops. and then cry that tx's using many sigops take longer to process.. logical solution is restrict sigops so that bloated tx's dont take up too much blockspace, dont use as many sigops, which also cuts down on processing time.

many have tried rebuttling me, but just used insults and not logic, not stats, not real life scenarios.
but yes. dont take anyones info on face value and run your own scenarios.

the short gist of blocksizes is that with dynamic blocks (node users set the blocksize buffer setting themselves) anything under that setting is acceptable. EG some people already have theirs set at 2mb, 4mb and up. and they are running on the network accepting (1mb)blocks now. perfectly fine.. no issues

using consensus (feature in bitcoin) if the majority flagged a certain level. then pools would flag a level they are happy with too and it grows only at a rate the majority are happy with.
so the rational minded people know it wont jump to gigabytes over night but natural pace that nodes can cope with.

after all if they cant cope, they wont flag desire for it. and any increase wont activate, due to consensus not being reached

only issue is core are withholding an implimentation of that sort of feature to allow users to self adjust. thus we are stuck at 1mb until those running core are spoonfed whatever core devs want to give their users.

so take the blocksize doomsday rhetorics with a large pinch of salt, it just core devs (blockstream paid + lots of unpaid interns) holding things back, because they prfer pushing users into centralist contracts where they can make money charging fee's and revoking payments

what if i told you that using dynamic rules AND consensus.. nodes only flag desire to increase when they can handle it. and it only increases if the majority can handle it. they all set their own max buffer flag, and blocksizes of larger amounts only grow to the scale the majority can happily cope with.

meaning it will not surpass what people can cope with, because if larger sizes cant be coped with by nodes they wont flag desire for..

we dont need devs to spoonfeed what they feel/they desire, when the network itself can do it.

devs have already said 8mb is safe but they prefer their 4mb weight. (compared to their old fake doomsday rhetoric of 2mb was bad)
so there is no reason to keep the baseblock at 1mb

if you are antpool/bitmain/bitfury etc.. the cost is zero.. thanks to their retail sales of asics..
well kinda

at most its just the electric price which is ~$225 per 13thash asic for 6months. but this can also be offset thanks to their retail sales too

this is because the retail price they sell their ASICS to others is 4-5x the cost of manufacturing an ASIC.
so for every asic sold antpool can keep 3-4 asics themselves or have 1 asic themselves and spare funds for electric, wages and shelter lease.

but if you are in the west having to buy an asic and pay the electric

first its $2100 for 13thash asic, (pre christmas it was just $1600/asic)
then the electric, shelter lease, salary and the PSU needs to be added

but first the electric
if you are in the US its ~$450 for 6 months electric per asic (totalling ~$2700 all included for 6 month running time or ~$3100 for a year)
if you are in the UK its ~$900 for 6 months electric per asic (totalling ~$3100 all included for 6 month running time or ~$3500 for a year)


some maths was done before christmas that calculated it would take 1 asic 6 months to get 1btc. so if asic manufacturers were to pay electric(~$225(add a bit more for wage/shelter leasing)), then $300 sounds right. thanks to the freebie asic they get due to their retail business

but.. here is the but..  the hashrate competition and the difficulty has changed since then. antpool alone opened a new facility and their hashrate has jumped considerably, as has the network difficulty.

the network difficulty has jumped ~29% since previous calculations of predicted 6month for 1btc/asic..
the network hashrate has jumped ~30% since previous calculations of predicted 6month for 1btc/asic..

factoring in other things. like knowing hashrate/difficulty changes, at 6 months now only gets you 0.89btc and takes a further 2 and a half months to get 1btc

and yes i done calculations that step down the income per fortnight dependant on difficulty/hashrate competition variation.
where those fortnightly stepping down income, really affect income as time passes.

summary
for asic manufacturers its between 0-$400/btc if including electric leases etc (compared to prechristmas $300)
for asic consumers its between $2900(US)-$3500(uk) (compared to prechristmas $2100(US)-$2600(uk))

based on the million tx's (mine stopped at 1,048,575 results)

average tx confirmed in 40mins 30mins
average tx size 458bytes
average tx fee 36892sat-41750sat      (depending on if you include or exclude the 0fee tx's in the average)

average fee per byte is 91sat/byte
max fee per byte of range 34883 sat/byte
min fee per byte of range 0
-- as for the max fee.. either the source data has an error or someone lastweek paid ALOT for one of their transaction

max tx size 98888 bytes (98.9KB)
min tx size 170 bytes
-- as for the max bytes..either the source data has an error or someone lastweek had a near 99kb tx(filling 10% of block with 1tx)

when 12 paid blockstream centralist devs hand out scripts to their 90 interns who desire to impress the paid guys in the hopes the interns get a job by showing loyalty. and each of them start going out and repeating the "blocksize rise is doomsday" rhetoric..
many people believe, not because its true but because they are hearing the same story from 100 different people. so they dont even bother to individually investigate, research or run scenarios. but accept the spoonfed info on face value due to "trust". afterall their mindset is '100 people cant be wrong'..

mark twain: " a lie can travel around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes"

you can usually spot the scripts. when they throw out words like "we are conservative" or "go fork your altcoin" to anyone thats not core friendly
its like blockstream are taking a lesson from mass media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA
https://youtu.be/jH8dejYGa5A?t=36s

funny part is, this rhetoric thats passed around lacks stats or real life data.
but people will sheep follow just out of trust that if 10 people say the same thing, even if there are no stats to back it up. it must be true

they even went out of their way to say that although satoshi said 32mb is ok.. the chinese firewall has issues far below 32mb.
the problem with that theory is that, the chinese firewall does not have issues. infact chinese pools have stratum servers outside the firewall that hold the actual block data and only need to send a small hash (few bytes) to ASIC farms.. thus ASIC farms inside china are not even handling the real blockchain data anyway(no ASIC has a hard drive). thus killing off the chinese firewall theory/doomsday rhetoric..

yep the 8mb number is to do with the chinese firewall. but the chinese pools have mitigated that risk. though for now the community are only seeking 2mb-4mb so we can delve deeper into the 8mb theory at a later date.

but all in all the community think baby steps is safe. which we all agree.. even as far back as 2015 we all thought we settled our differences and agreed that 2mb was fine. but.. its the blockstream centralists and their sheep that are the ones throwing out the gigabyte blocks by midnight doomsday, not anyone else (with atleast half a brain)

learn enough about BTC and then you can become the lecturer.
you can make a nice income. but worth doing a few small seminars for free to get your name known locally first.. its how andreas antanopolis started off and now he is making a career out of it, fully funded by bitcoin.. paid for by conference ticket purchases (thus even organising events is no big cost to get lecturers in)