they are not banned.
they are just prohibiting BANKS from offering bitcoin services. to protect their economy by ensuring banks only handle fiat.
this has nothing to do with citizens.

guys you need to stop with the "if governments do or dont do" rhetoric

we need to strengthen bitcoin to not care.

another point is by not scaling bitcoin we have already prohibited atleast half a dozen countries from using bitcoin ourselves.
a 0.06cent tx fee is an hours labour / 4 loaves of bread for just the fee.. in many countries

no on is going to pay that. would you want to buy 4 loaves of bread knowing its going to cost you another 4 loaves just to buy it. basically meaning you cannot get 8 loaves even if before making a transaction you had funds equivalent to 8 loaves.

the higher the fee gets the less countries see bitcoin as an advantage. paying under the average slows down when your transaction may or may not get confirmed. thus its not just a cost thing, but a slow system for those third world countries too.

we need to concentrate on strengthening bitcoin to not worry about governments. and also get more people desiring bitcoin by not putting up barriers of entry. but just barriers to destruction

doesnt matter about filling a block.
just having a block of any transactions with a $1.00 fee makes that block become $1.00 requirement. even if there are just 2 transactions per block
repeat that for 25 blocks and the average minimum that nodes 'predict' as an acceptable fee becomes $1.00, then wallets and nodes start making transactions above $1.00 to try getting into a block because they have been waiting upto 25 blocks where the pools have previously rejected their sub $1.00 fee transactions.

the even funnier part is that nodes themselves are soon going to drop a tx if it doesnt meet the minimum average (rather than the old mechanism since 0.9). thus pools wont even get to see all transactions for pools to make a choice of lowering or upping their rate.
by not even receiving cheap transactions they cannot accept cheap transactions to lower the 25 block average. thus making it alot harder to lower the price.

remember we are not in the year 2140.. so pools do not care much about fee's.. its not their main income so messing with a fee war now is easy as pie, hurting users not pools
the dilemma of pools getting paid or not is something decades away due to the reward covering their backs

so we can easily see empty blocks with only a few transactions at the minimum and then a bottleneck when everyone starts trying to outbid each other.

there are no rules to force a fee to drop but certainly many ways to push the price up. hense the term fee war. because it has no status quo mechanism to prevent abuse. or prevent the price going too high.

its already priced out atleast half a dozen third world countries from using bitcoin. ($0.06-$0.07 is an hours labour/4 loaves of bread in those countries, just for the fee!)

ok so
he is in the UK, setting up as many shady shell companies as he can.
each shell uses the collateral of the last shell to form new collateral in the next company

EG he faked a "trust" to get a business investment from australian government
he then set up a new business, and used the australian government funds as collateral to then get VC money in the second business
he then set up a new business, and used the VC money as collateral to then get more VC money in the third business
he then set up a new business, and used the third companies collateral to pay for legal team to make dubious patents.
he is now setting up atleast the 6th business to use potential patents to get VC money into the 6th business

he will claim that his business is legit by showing patent claims of the 5th business to legitimise the 6th business.. the only problem
once australian government screw him for the "trust" and first businesses, his ponzi scheme falls down like a house of cards.

its just a shame that the australian government haven't (as part of the commonwealth) got craig extradited back to Australia and locked up.
infact its a shame that they havnt just arrested him in the UK

but it will happen and his cards will fall

already been done.
geocaching

one example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55106.msg657746#msg657746

its been done before.. the main result turns into "shoe on head"

old concept.. didnt last

"show on head: xbtc"

short answer..
Craig Wright is trying to make a legal claim he owns upto a million bitcoins..
(even he cannot get the correct figure because he does not own them to know the real total)

so far even showing a signature has not proven his claim.(it was an old publicly available signature from 7years ago)
yet media and some paid off representatives are upholding his claim.. saying the signature is legit (facepalm)

simply due to ignorance of true proof or a nice payday by those who know what true proof looks like but think the payday is worth the lie.
sadly craig wright is not in jail for fraud even though many techies have revealed he has not proved anything.

so even using the blockchain and having many techies clearly explain craig wright doesnt own the coins. he is still able to use someone elses 'collateral' as his own to steal off of the australian government and several large VC's in places like the UK and canada.

in short. using the blockchain as a title registration is not enough. especially with naive users and backhand payoffs are involved. it then requires humans/businesses to analyse and authenticate claims. which brings the whole system back on itself needing regulated registration departments to be involved.


we are all satoshi
with this signature
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

we can all become satoshi nakamoto and all claim to have 28btc right now
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe

but the next difficulty is predicted in under 8 days (5th) then estimated at 14 days after that (19th)
so if they are going to measure it as of the 5thnov-19thnov.. and then the 19thnov-3rdDec
then thats another flawed moment

EG you might aswell rule out 15th-19th due to it only having 4 days of flags
possibly rule out 19th-3rd, due to smart people running live tests on main net (rpc/wallet/relay)
meaning only real sensible slot would be 3rdDec-17thDec

but here is the other reason why doing (my random demo numbers)
440,000 - 442,016
442,017 - 444,032
444,032 - 446,048
and so on
is worse than doing
442,016 looking back to 440,000
442,017 looking back to 440,001
442,018 looking back to 440,002
and so on

because imagine it reached 95% on block 441,000
in the first case the slot of 440,000-442,016 would be classed as half full(still opposed much like 15th-19th). because only a week would have have the flag not the 2 weeks
then miners would need to continue that 95% for the whole of 442,017-444,032 meaning 3 weeks. just to have 95% for a full 2 weeks because the first week didnt count.

in the second case it would be checking 443,016 back to 441,000 and lock it in.. (a week sooner thank first case)

the other bad thing is.. by using slots as oppose to constant checks.
a opposer just needs to push their hashpower to get 102 blocks solved.. then they can turn off their rigs for the rest of the fortnight knowing it would be another slot opposed due to 102 nonsegwit flagged blocks in the slot period..

where as if it was a back checking at every block of the previous 2016 blocks. those opposing will need to be constantly running extra hash power all the time to get 8 blocks a day to keep it below the threshold requirement.

EG
first case. double hashpower. mine 16 blocks a day. then turn rigs off after a week and relax knowing its opposed even with a week to go.
second case mine 8 blocks a day but constantly need to run it everyday.

infact if the slots were
19thNov-3rdDec
3rdDec-17thDec
17thDec-31stDec
31stDec-14thJan

an opposer can run extra hash from 26thNov-10thDec. and oppose 2 slots. where people got excited 19thNov-26thNov. and then boom disappointed all the way through to the 17thDec

an opposer can run extra hash from 24thDec-7thJan. and oppose 2 slots. where people got excited 17thDec-24thDec. and then boom disapointed all the way through to the 14thJan

where as checking each block for previous 2016 blocks means an opposer needs to stay constant and not drop hashpower.

this is the same tactic a sybil attacker can do on user nodes if there was a user consensus needed.. not required to run 24/7, just needed to run at strategic times if the measures were done in slots. as oppose to constant checks

but hey.. lets brush it under the carpet. and treat devs as gods.

atleast this drama should be over soon and we can then concentrate on actual onchain scaling now that segwit is deemed fully coded and perfect. so now they can start on stuff not related to segwit because thats all complete

firstly the core 885 are NOT segwit.

they are just core.. meaning legacy nodes that are not segwit coded.

how about wait till november 15th and start actually displaying the true results. rather than twisting things.

both things you ask are the same thing.
when a block is created it immediately checks the previous 2016 blocks preceding that block to see if 1915 are flagging for segwit.
like i said. it doesnt wait 2016 blocks and then back checks.. then wait 2016 blocks and back checks.
EG
not start at 440000 and wait aimlessly for 442016 to then check all blocks back to 440,000
not wait till 442017 and wait aimlessly for 444032 to then check all blocks back to 442016
it checks 2016 blocks preceding the one its currently at.
start at 440000 check back to 437,984
check at 440001 back to 437,985

as for the other question.
say the start was 440,000 (15th november)
if right that moment everyone was flagging.. the lockin period would be 442016. and the waiting period would end 444032. meaning the first segwit transaction allowed into a block would be 444033
but that ofcourse is IF it got 95% nearly instantly on the 15th and held that 95% for the 2weeks to lockin for the start of december.

even segwit devs are warning to not rush:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/


so dont expect everyone to wave their flags straight away on november 15th to get a lockin by the start of december and running by christmas.. expect it to be usable by spring 2017ish as a rational 'early' timescale.

any sooner shows its a rush job which can cause issues where people have not actually tried it before waving their flags.
much like kids telling their friends they have an iphone before actually turning it on to see how it works. and then some kids crying because they have issues. the smart plan is always to try something before waving it around

ok
imagine november 15th first checked period was blockheight 440,000
its not a fixed intervals of
440,000 - 442,016
442,017 - 444,032
444,032 - 446,048

instead its any previous 2016 blocks directly before the current newest block, as of the start date..

so say the start date was block 440,000 it would look backwards all the way to 437,984
which obviously no one was flagging before 440,000 so it wont lock in.
~ 10 minutes later (440,001) would look back to 437,985

but because flagging only begins at lets say 440,000 the earliest chance could be
442,016 looking back to 440,000(start of December back to mid November)
442,017 looking back to 440,001
442,018 looking back to 440,002
442,019 looking back to 440,003
442,020 looking back to 440,004
442,021 looking back to 440,005
442,022 looking back to 440,006
442,023 looking back to 440,007
442,024 looking back to 440,008

and so on. and so on
if it does achieve 95%, then once its locked in. a further ~2 week period waiting time is allowed before its 'live' and active.
if it does not achieve 95% anytime before this time next year, it defined as not viable and the attempts are given up


note:
i picked 440,000 as a number .. but stupidly devs chose to use a unix timestamp as the start point (i laughed)
when counting blocks a rational thing would be to use a blockheight as a starting point. afterall timestamps are useless in most cases

lol proxy bypass allows access to things banned while you still have internet available on your land line. but if your internet has been cut off completely due to a chance of your ISP's terms of service. then you are OFFLINE.. and no proxy bypass or tor can get around that.

it does not require making EVERYONE (billions of people) go offline to destroy bitcoin.. but instead just <6000.
yes it requires a co-ordinated approach to time 91 countries ISP's to do this at the same time. but it is possible.

relying on hope/trust that 91 governments or groups of ISP do not do this, is not good. we need to continue to strengthen bitcoin to not need hope/trust. but instead be strong enough to say "bring it, i dare ya" knowing they wont be successful.

lol core weight is upto 4mb
whether its 1mb base 4mb weight
whether its 2mb base 4mb weight

the burden is the same

but i do love your endless uses of umbrella terms that do not have defined explanations.
you say things like left-right that anyone can flip anyone into either side.
but also from other topics.. you use "hard fork" as a single answer..
however, there are atleast 3 possible outcomes, due to atleast 3 different scenarios that all are under the umbrella term hard fork
1. consensual upgrade
2. controversial
3. intentional split

as for your rich guy deserves a vote..
if he USES the coin to:
pay for devs to develop a more secure implementation
starts a business making prebuilt nodes
good.
but if he just waving an address in the air like he just dont care, but still demands a vote.. bad
and him saying he will sell coins if he doesnt get his way.. is not a threat but a discount day. people will actually taunt him on to sell his coins so they can get cheap coins.

as for the node count
by having more capacity onchain people can transact more onchain. so will want to protect the chain thing they are actually using each day..
however if people only use off chain or sidechains. they will only use the LN node or protect the sidechain where they are transacting. thus offchain and side chain has the psychological risks of diluting the node count more.
EG you protect core/blockstream because its what you use.. you dont protect satoshi-qt0.3 because you dont use it.
as things develop you will protect the thing you will be using daily

possession does not mean it has to be physically in your hand.
EG if it did then perves can get away with crimes by saying the gross images were not in their hand so they did not possess the images.
the perve has to however prove he had no access to gross images, or was not the only one with access. to prove he had no/reasonable doubt of possession.

possession is just who has access.

ownership is registered and provable deservingness to hinder others from having trying to claim free usage. but still even being an owner. does not stop others possessing it morally or immorally.
EG. a lawnmower in a garage. a receipt proves who owns it and deserves it back. but only the person with the key to the garage possesses it.
possession does not prove ownership. and ownership does not prove possession.

no one has the lawnmower/coin outright. as that requires debate. but only those with a key with access to move the lawnmower/coin has possession. even if that lawnmower is locked up in a storage locker 200 miles away and that storage locker can be burned down at any time.

1 french people consume 7 379 kWh in 1 year= average household uses 840watt an hour
seems about right when you think about a fridge/freezer on 24/7 and tv, computer, houselights, electric oven, dish/clothes washer on for certain amount of time which averages to that total.

but..
a node is just a computer ~450watt so for every 2 nodes is ~ 1 household(yes im rounding)..  so the real maths would be
5200 nodes @ 450watt = 2785 french households (nodes: 2340000watts / 840= 2785 households)

now as for the mining.
an asic is powered at ~1300watt = so for every asic is under 2 french people(yes i rounded)..so the real maths would be
125k asics @ 1.3kwatt = 193452 french households (asics: 162500000watts / 840= 193452 households)

so your saying financial systems are not restricted?
ever tried to get more the £$500 out of an ATM
ever tried to carry more than £$10,000 in cash onto a plane

we should stop thinking or caring about government rules or possible future rules. but strengthen the network to not get impacted by any rules present or future.

we need to stop saying:
"i hope governments dont change laws"
"i hope hackers dont delete 6000 nodes data in one swoop"

and instead say
"hackers come try breaking bitcoin, you can waste your time it wont break"
"governments come try to take it offline, you can waste your time but new nodes will be up in 20 seconds"

we should not care about why, where, who.
we should not be apathetic due to questions of why, where, who.

instead we should continue to increase the networks diversity and distribution so that questions such as:
why doesn't matter
when doesn't matter
who doesn't matter
where doesn't matter

most hardware is defunct/out of date in 4-5 years so i think the 1TB is enough..
give them a few years and their next version will probably have more. but as i said 1TB is atleast 5 years, but more realistically 7-10years. which is adequate