no one is proposing 8mb blocks any time soon.

2gb is the 'safe' amount for 2017.. 4mb at a stretch.
all of which are going to be acceptable within someones 60gb monthly limit. even after you account for relaying.

also not everyone has to be a full node. there are a couple million people using bitcoin regularly but only 5400 of them are full nodes.

if you have no reason to run a fullnode (your not that interested in bitcoin or not a merchant) then just run a litenode.
if you have a reason to be a full node you can run it and be within your bandwidth.
worse case.. not today but in a couple years if your ISP has not migrated your 'cap' to bigger numbers. you can change your ISP

here is the thing.
watching just 4 hours of netflix wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 8mb ALL day .
livestreaming a game for 2 hours wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 8mb ALL day.

watching just 2 hours of netflix wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 4mb ALL day .
livestreaming a game for 1 hours wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 4mb ALL day.

watching just 1 hours of netflix wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 2mb ALL day .
livestreaming a game for 30 mins wastes more bandwith than running bitcoin at 2mb ALL day.

if watching TV or playing games is more important than bitcoin. then just run a litenode.
stop throwing doomsdays of numbers that do not rationally meet real life expectations for the next year, shouting the horrors of the next year, where you have not even done any real maths or scenarios of the next year.

atleast be realistic

you do know that if 95% have nodes that accept 2mb.. they accept ANYTHING below 2mb.
meaning

when nodes get to 95% ... 2 weeks grace pass to make sure it isnt a fluke.
miners then do a upto 95% period too plus a grace period.
by which time the node count should exceed 95%.

if it deminishes, pools wont risk it if the orphan rate risk jumped.
if it stays stable, pools would try it out

where pools only risk making blocks of 10000250byte block and see what the orphan rate is like
if happy they naturally test the waters with slightly more.

in short. back in 2009-2016 miners were not jumping to 1mb. they slowly progressed to 1mb.
dont think/imagine that pools are suddenly going to make 1.99mb the day of activation. (rationally/logically/logistically they wont)

if the orphan rate is too high we stick to 1mb.
this does not mean nodes have to downgrade. because 2mb accepts any data below 2mb
whether its 250bytes 1kb, 100kb 0.99mb whatever.

its more then a pledge because the nodes would already have the 2mb rule inplace BEFORE activation. meaning nodes are fully accepting even before pools push the envelope

right now many nodes are HAPPILY running with 2mb active. just like old nodes were happily running 1mb rule when blocks were only bing made at 0.2mb in 2009-2011 or 0.5mb upto 2013..
yep the rule was 1mb but blocks were under 1mb
future rule of 2mb while blocks are under 2mb.. same thing

but here is the funny part.. segwit IS a pledge. if you did not realise it 0.8->0.13.1 NEEDS to be upgraded to a new release (not yet available) AFTER activation for users to actually use segwit transaction features. yes only avaiable AFTER.

but things like BU, and other blocksize consensus nodes are ACTIVE AND RUNNING now. they are just waiting for a  majority to give miners confidence to push the envelope and test the water.. with worse case, them getting thier attempt orphaned.

if you want the imagery of a chain. then it would be
some double links of a chain are abandoned and replaced with new single links..
NOT the chain is abandoned

the reason i use trees/branches is 2 fold. one.. devs love their merkle tree and also trees grow naturally they naturally make branches and can have their branches cut off. devs's also love to "prune" .. not wirecut.. so branches instead of metal chain seems to fit their narative as a way of explaining things

the old protocol is still acceptable to the branch.. because they are connected.

EG lets say old protocol block 0-450000 new consensus 450001..
by saying old protocol not supported. thats like saying it will reject blocks below 450k
killing off the old chain.
wrong on so many levels.

with 2mb, blocks of 0.0002mb->1.99mb are supported. it also does not mean all blocks have to be over 1mb but under 2mb
again blocks of 0.0002mb->1.99mb are supported. the old protocol IS supported.

as for your ethereum mention. please please please research ethereum. rather than just the media hype
learn how they AVOID and drop connection to.. rather than using consensus.
and stop comparing ethereums intention avoidance to a proposed bitcoin consensus. they are not the same thing

firstly ill repeat

and then add
yet other proposals could have been released sooner..
segwit is just kicking the stone down the road.
at the moment pre-segwit we are getting ~2500tx (standard tx mix)
at the moment pre-segwit we are getting ~2100tx (standard/multisig tx mix)

only expect ~4500tx IF.. EMPHASIS: IF 100% of users use segwit.
yep the 1.8x of ~2500tx (standard tx mix) =~4500 IF 100% of users use segwit.
yep the 2.1x of ~2100tx (standard/multisig tx mix) ~4500 IF 100% of users use segwit.

but guess what.
if you look back to 2009-2013, transactions were leaner with the estimates of 4500tx (remember the good old days of 7tx/s hype)
thats right we are just going backwards to original expectations of 2009-2013..
and only able to reach OLD expectations IF EVERYONE used segwit

but a proper scalability of 2mb base 4mb weight. would offer ~5000tx without segwit and ~9000tx with segwit.

and making it dynamic means we are not waiting months/years for PEOPLE to decide to allow other people to download a change. it would happen as part of the network. meaning no political name calling or oliver twist scripts of "please sir can i have some more"

but hey we seem to have too many people protecting devs rather then bitcoins diversity and utility.

no need to watch data packets for specific ports and data sizes live while its being sent.

afterall ISP's are keeping metadata for years on every user(yea we know they keep more then just metadata, but shhh)
meta data is easy..
search keywords: "useragent satoshi"
search keywords: "useragent bitcoin"

the thing is that circle is making more profit swapping fiat. bitcoin is a small insignificant income for them.

many businesses are seeing that bitcoin <-> fiat is dropping off, while costs of trying to keep it running is increasing.
bitcoin has stagnated, which the bankers are loving.

circle calculated the legal costs of getting a similar subpoena that coinbase got outweighs the funds they make from it.

especially when circles costs to even do it are higher (they accept visa/mastercard=high chargeback risk and high merchant service charge)

circle in my view was never a big player in the bitcoin game. just a big player in the MEDIA game so they can get VC money.

"old chain"... dies off??

its never a 2 chain event. its a BRANCH that gets trimmed off depending on which branch is the strongest where the weakest branch gets cut off

by claiming old chain. thats a imagery of claiming everything before the branch right to the genesis block dies.
its doesnt
blocks are still mined ontop of the previous blocks. the CHAIN continues on. just that there are not 2 persistent branches

no new genesis block is created, the mining doesnt start at block 1 again. it continues on..

again you do realise that consensus rule breaks happen everyday right.. up to about 2-3% average risk
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks

an nobody bats an eyelid because the majority of 97-98% exist to trim the branch pretty quick

again no viable BIP is asking for a altcoin maker. so i have no idea why you keep trying to make everything sound like an altcoin maker when nothing is even proposing that.

again the RATIONAL debate is about using consensus. the REALISTIC debate is about using consensus.
where the RATIONAL AND REALISTIC result is due to RATIONAL acceptance of a 5% risk.. is slightly elevated orphans

if a block was created at under 95% then the orphans would happen more noticeably.

take 51% mining.. that would be orphan hell and merchants would hold off on withdrawals/trading until the drama passes.

i dont know why you are obsessed with making everything sound like altcoin making.
have you even run any simulations.
have you even run a node that you have altered outside of blockstream devs perceived defaults. to realise that it does not create an altcoin
by you having 2mb base 4mb weight. right now.

yep thats right. nodes right now can have any blocksize setting they want be it 1.1mb, 1.5mb 2mb 4mb it wont change nothing.
pools wont however push out anything bigger until they know the SINGLE NETWORK can cope with it

again now you are trying to claim an consensual fork as being an altcoin maker..
seriously!!

consensual = consensus
consensus breaks results in orphans and fixes itself as the SINGLE chain to what the majority consent to the minority just doesnt sync.

bitcoin has consensus built into it. from day one.
orphans happen all the time
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks

its all part of bitcoin

however
banning opposing nodes purely based on politics requires adding opposition ban list outsode of the built in Ddos parameters, outside of the time limit defaults of the ddos ban.

to get an altcoin it has to be an INTENTIONAL CONTROVERVIAL SPLIT where they IGNORE CONSENSUS/ORPHANS

have a dart board. put different $$ on it and throw a dart.
then make an article using the exact words about economic stimulus..quoting the random number you hit

in short no one knows what the price will be. but anything can/could affect the price.

the thing is even if bitcoin hit lets say $2000.. trump could cripple the dollar where $2000 ends up only buying you a round of beers for 5 people
which means not so helpful for the buying power of bitcoin to get much in goods/beer

you do know that LN can function without segwit.
the benefits of segwit helping LN and helping bitcoin are exaggerated.

seems kimdotcom is using the blockstream concept of LN, hense the delay in kimdotcom's service.
however there are many many other concepts that dont need segwit.

but the powerhouses choose their own partners even if it means making the community wait

its just kicking a stone down the road to explain a year delaying real scalability.
but thats a topic for another discussion.

kimdotcoms version of LN is not ready.

as for 'at around december'..
that could mean november december or january.

a bit early to shout 'there is nothing'

much the same as segwit announced segwit by christmas.. but dont expect it by christmas.

wait for sgwit, LN and kimdotcom's LN news after the new year

and by 'after the new year'. i dont mean literally quote me on january 1st and say im wrong. take it contextually as some time in 2017

if expecting alot of withdrawals.
dont send a tx per user request. send it out as batches. EG once every 30 minutes as a single tx going out to many customers. ofcourse highlight to customers that withdrawals may take upto an hour (allowing 30minute confirmation wiggle room)


note: 'bytes' might vary +-10 in calculations
note: cost/byte set at an old 'high' as a onetime worse case scenario demo. but you atleast see the difference singular v batching does
i displayed this old spreadsheet to demonstrate cost / withdrawl =0.00003085(batched) as oppose to 0.00070200(singular)

as for LN
LN is not about depositing funds into you and withdrawing out to not use you again.
LN is for those that want to deposit in.. and then agree on who gets what amount of deposited funds over time internally. and settleup/withdraw later
(repeat trades by having pre-paid bartab instead of buying each item separately)
think of it like a joint bank account.
you and wife put funds in. then away from the bank agree on who owes who what each minute, hour, day, week, whenever
then at end of the month X goes to her Y goes to you when you both go to the ATM. saving you having to go to the bank each day to withdraw

so its like an orderbook away from the network. if customers are always depositing 0.001 a day.. and withdrawing 0.00x
then you can tell them use LN deposit 0.03 to cover a month. set the lock for a month. and you can both adjust who owes what each day internally

and at the end of the month submit 1 tx for 0.0x to them and 0.0x to you. as one tx a month instead of 30tx a month.

as for customers that only use you once, ever.. forget it LN has no advantage

love the doomsday.
if china government banned mining. then pools switch to a stratum server based outside of china..(2 second switch) oh.. all the major pools already have backup stratums.. for that very reason
oh.. and many pools called 'china' are actually run in thailand, mongolia, georgia(europe), iceland, etc.. for that very reason

have a nice day

ill help the OP out
E 1,191,870 is how much bitstamp is hoping 2% is worth.(their investment goal note measured in euro)
$ 1,187,366 is how much bitstamp is hoping 2% is worth.(their investment goal note measured in dollar)
lets call it a round figure of $E1.2mill for easy maths

meaning bitstamp think 100% (2%($E1.2m)*50) of the business is worth lets call it 60 million dollar/euro

now lets separately look at how much income that 60mill company gets
so $5m a day trading volume ($4.3m dollars today but lets round it up to match OP) with 0.1% fee...
($5m/1000)=$5000 a day income
multiply that for the year: $1,825,000
now that $1.8m yearly income is for 100% of the company.
so now you divide that 100% to 2% to know how much the share holder of 2% gets
the answer: $36,500

so shareholder buys 2% at $1,187,366 but gets only $36,500 returns a year
based on OP's calculations

---

now here is the better maths
https://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_trades.html
$1,089,496,180.20 a year volume

what has to be known is the average trader is charged 0.2%
and when a trade happens the 'maker' is charged 0.2% and the 'taker' is charged 0.2%
so for each trade bitstamp gets 0.4%

$1,089,496,180.20/0.4% = $4,357,984.72 income for 100% of the company to share. which (imagining(dumbly) there are no costs to account for first)
again without caring about bills/salaries that eat into that $4.3m income
equals AT BEST 2% is $125,560

but that still does not cover the $1.2mill investment and would take 10 years to recoup even if that money was handed out BEFORE COSTS.
after costs expect ALOT less
because salaries do need to be paid.. bills need to be paid and in most investments, investors get their % AFTER profit is calculated. not income

---

oh and here is the real kicker
http://ukbizdb.com/company/08157033/bitstamp-limited/finances
its from 2013.. but read it and get some surprises

the company only has $18,800(£14,906) of its own assets (office/furniture/server/domainname)
but is valuing the company at $82,847,791 (£65,687,050)
its done this by using its customers funds as its own collateral!!! $81,813,497(£64,866,995) liability

---

based on the 2013 finances and knowing the income, etc.. i can see why they 'claimed a hack' in 2015
and they will claim another hack later too.

here we go someone else trying to meander all the types back into on umbrella term and then make that term sound bad. by only mentioning the worse cases

ethereum did not split and survive due to consensus.
it was not just 2 differing rules that battled it out in an orphan war.

they literally walked in different directions never looking at each other.
learn --oppose-dao-fork
im literally spelling it out for you which google can guide you further
--oppose-dao-fork is not a consensus orphan war. but a surrender and retreat to different corners and never look at eachother

ethereum should not be used as an example because ethereum did not use consensus.
no bitcoin proposal should use the intentional altcoin maker. all the blocksize bips that are viable are not using the intentional altcoin maker
the community want a consensus driven vote to grow on one mainnet. not split.
so why even mention something that requires adding intentional rules to ignore and walk away.
it has nothing to do with a viable bitcoin scaling. but everything to do with making clams2.0 (which the majority do not want anyway)

if people stop umbrella terming the creation of an altcoin to be the definition of a hard fork. and start running real simulations of using consensus
if people stop thinking that orphans only ever happen when an altcoin is potentially forming. and instead realise orphans happen more times then they think without an altcoin forming
.
they will realise consensus and orphans are part of bitcoin and a security feature built into bitcoin from day one.
banning nodes is not built into bitcoin. so atleast learn the difference and stop doomsdaying a normal consensus driven fork

as for the ban. the ban is not permanent.. its 100 seconds or any amount a node chooses.. (then when time is up the orphans return and wipe out that work of the minority in that time)
also the ban is if someone is intentionally broadcasting a block not requested and doesnt fit rules. (a DDoS)
however usually theres a handshake.
EG A requests data. gets bad data doesnt make B the bad guy that should be banned.. because B sent something that A requested...

unlike if lets say C (a malicious node) DDoSed A with unrequested data
in this event C would get banned.

but A would simply just not ask B to resend again. and would look for another source while keeping B active.

unlike the ethereum intentional split where its a permanent ban by extra ban rules being added.

its also not recommended to use the ban (meant for DDoS) to be used as an intentional split. (by adding in new rules)

as dannyhamilton has meandered upon.. the term hardfork has lost its meaning. and become an umbrella term that can be many things.

he however twists the scenarios to fit a rhetoric of A (staying low is best) by not staying on track with his scenarios.
by scenario 1
being consensual fork where A wins..

but for scenario 2
he doesnt use consensual fork where B wins.(like a mirror of A)
instead 'suggest' consensual fork where B wins but throws in intentional splits to make it sound bad.

in scenario 3
he doesnt use consensual fork where eventually A wins.
instead he ignores consensual fork and talks about controversial fork and intentional splits.

he should have, to be unbiased done a scenario 4.
consensual B majority, no mention of intentional split

he should have, to be unbiased done a scenario 5.
consensual B majority, A splits

but no he wanted to make B sound bad

but hey its funny seeing them try throwing controversial, consensual and intentional split under one buzzword to scare people. rather than explain the details and differences and what is actually involved.

hardforks under bitcoin resolve themselves due to orphans/consensus

an intentional split like ethereum (--oppose-dao-fork)
are things that are NOT proposed in any viable BIP and are not a hardfork. they are an intentional split(altcoin maker).

dont think of forks as 2 persistant chains. think of it as one chain that branches off and one limb will be cut off.. once orphan drama sorts out the victor.
any rational and viable fork should use consensus. to reduce orphan risk

a controversial hardfork is when the consensus is low. meaning LOTS of orphans (a tree branches out, you cut its limb. another branches out, you cut its limb. over and over)
again not 2 persistent chains

a consensual hardfork is when the consensus is high. meaning minimal orphans (a tree branches out, you cut the weak limb quite fast and continue the strong limb)
again not 2 persistent chains

a softfork changes a rule without branching, unless there is a bug.. (like the leveldb upgrade in 0.8 that started as soft. but ended up as hard and controversial)
a hardfork has a bigger chance of branching off even without a bug.. depending on node acceptance levels.

however
a controversial hardfork can be seen by the leveldb bug.
yep changing to leveldb was suppose to be a soft upgrade.. but ended up causing a controversial hard fork where there was not a clear majority running 0.7 or 0.8
where by 0.7nodes hung.. and were not syncing..
it was not 2 persistent chains. 0.8 continued on. 0.7 hung and didnt persist.

a decision was made to downgrade back to 0.7 and fix the cause later. thus cutting off the 0.8 limb rather than leaving 0.7 hanging in the unsyncing abyss of screaming out orphans. due to the high orphan risk

if there was a clear majority wanting to move forward. it would be more prudent to get the minority to upgrade..
if there was a clear majority wanting to stay back. it would be more prudent to get the minority to downgrade..

these days. pools wont even do anything unless there is a clear majority acceptance. they want to avoid orphans.(zero reward)
merchants want to avoid orphans(double spends)
fullnodes want to avoid orphans (bandwidth, loops, hangups)

hang on.
lets get this right
so icebreaker. who was happy with gmaxwell R3cking hearn(r3) . for being paid by bankers.
now icebreaker seems less friendly towards gmaxwell because its now public knowledge gmaxwell is paid by bankers too.

sidenote:
gmaxwell hates gavin.
where gavin(Bloq) and gmax(blockstream) are both paid by the same guy coindesk(DCG) who is involved with hyperledger(bankers altcoin) where all three (r3) (Bloq) and (blockstream) are highlighted as involved with hyperledger directly (members).. plus indirectly via investors

so hearn, gavin and gmax all paid by bankers and all have direct AND indirect ties to hyperledger ..

and then we have gmaxwell trying to take the moral highground pretending to be 'all about the bitcoin dcentralization' and 'it will all be ok' and anyone not blockstream friendly must be an altcoiner and should F**k off.. and if you are blockstream friendly you should patent your code under blockstream DLP so that blockstream can charge you FRAND royalties if you want to revoke your blockstream owned licence from your software

while gmaxwell plays with hyperledger and monero.. oh and multimillions of banker FIAT..