yes
the first partial one happens instantly. and shows up in trade history
the remainder of funds sit on the orderbook until someone else eats (takes) the amount from the order book, so shows as a separate trade on the trade history.

visa's capacity is only based on 60 years of slow growth to 800million users.
why does there have to be equal capacity by 2017??
bitcoin doesnt have 800 million users. i dont think it will get 800million users in 16 months or less

so lets base it on bitcoin users (2mill) and make rational judgement of perceived growth slowly

at the moment visa stats say that their users do approximately 40 transactions a year (some daily some only monthly) per user
http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/

so bitcoin has 2million users. making it 80mill transactions buffer needed as a minimum
bitcoin does ~2000tx a block, 144 blocks, 365 days a year = 105,120,000tx a year

so 1mb can handle 2million people doing an average 50 transactions.
or reworded
bitcoin at 1mb can handle 2.5million people doing similar transactions as on visa

which means 2mb can handle 2mill people doing 100tx each or 5million people doing similar visa card uses.

now lets think about 2mb+segwit (2million people 200tx or 10million people doing similar visa trend transactions.)

and thats probably going to be available in 2017

then we can calmdown and know over 15 years we can slow grow more (it doesnt need to be visa comparable by 2017)

to put it into prospective by 2017 (2mb+segwit) we will be at 10% of paypal or 10% of visa US or 1.25% of visa world wide.

which if we had lets say 4mb+segwit in 2020 20%paypal, 20%visa US, 2.5% visa worldwide.

then we can look at LN which meant to be 15x more possibilitys (take that number loosly as its based on lauda's numbers)

meaning
2mb+segwit+LN = 150% paypal, 150% visa USA and 18.75% visa world wide.
4mb+segwit+LN = 300% paypal, 300% visa USA and 37.5% visa world wide.
8mb+segwit+LN = 600% paypal, 600% visa USA and 75% visa world wide.

so atmost
12mb+segwit+LN = 900% paypal, 900%visa USA and 112.5% visa world wide.

now we all know 12mb+segwit is actually more like 24mb real data so dont expect to grow to that by 2018-2020. but i can see it easily happening before 2030.. very easily

my point is. if your using "averages"  and then you took an even 50% of the average then yes you would see a double

but randomness is not averaged

for instance the dice game.
you may throw it 1296 times but you *may* never get 1 1 1 1
you might however get 1 5 2 6 on three different occassions
or another random combination several times. but no guarantee of 1 1 1 1

you are only guaranteed to get it if you dont treat it like random throws but more of a combination look
6666, 6665, 6664...
instead of
4625, 2153,2256....

also trying to suggest that an average is a hard rule and use that along with a doubler is wrong.
just like saying bitcoin only makes blocks in 10 minutes which turns into 20 minutes is wrong.

the 10minutes is not based on the combined work of the 20 pools. but based on the work of 1 pool who luckily beat his 19 competitors
the 2nd place competitor could easily have got a solution just 2 seconds later.. should the first winner not have solved first (not 10 minutes later)

but the reality is a few blocks have been found in 1 minute of each other(402068-402069) meaning that if slushpool had half the hash power instead, it still would not mean it solved that block in 2 minutes instead of 1 (again not quite).
because hashrate is not even or average, and doesnt account for a competitor who may have a separate solution in 1minute 20 seconds.

EG
F2pool found a block in 7 minutes and then again in 2 minutes. doesnt mean if they had half the hashrate. it could be 14 minutes and 4 minutes(again not quite).

because lets say antpool. making blocks in 1 minute. got kicked off the network. along with eligius pool making 1 block a day. along with bitminter.. and ghash.io.

would any of them impacted BTCC's attempt.. how about F2pools attempt. how about slushes attempts

infact without antpool we could easily have seen F2pool make a block more often in 8-12 minutes because his competition has gone away and no need to stale the attempt mid way.

so the averages and reality do not sit side by side.

infact if BTCC disapears and F2pool disapeared. then antpool would have less competition and able to make more blocks more often all averaging under 10 minutes with the occassional gap to let Bitfury and BW a chance

nope
i agree with your statement, infact it adds another level ontop of my statement. because my statement was under the premiss that 64mb blocks were acceptable as standard and that there was little to no code to void a competitors solved block due to malicious bloat. and only code for miners to just ignore or accept malicious transactions within their own attempts of making a block.

similar to the 0fee ignore game. some miners ignore transactions without fee's but if a competitor had a block solution and those had tx's without fee's the ignorant miner would still accept its competitors solution.

but you are quite right the miners could also reject a block if it does not like the content of their competitors block,

EDIT. my now removed statement was on the bases of a 1mb attack. now lets make it 64mb..
if it takes 10minutes to validate a malicious 1mb. then it takes 640 minutes to validate a 64mb.. and so malicious miner is 638 minutes behind the competitors before it even begins to hash a block, because neutral miners will ignore such stupid transactions just like they ignore 0 fee transactions and make a standard block using more rational size transactions

#0 this can be solved by core adding in the code, to not cause the contention they cry about. then with all the different code bases (btcd, bitcoinj, classic, core, etc) having the code, it is then just a waiting game to see if miners decide to upgrade too knowing all the users are ready to accept such changes.

#1 this can be solved by knowing REALISTICALLY the times it actually takes to sort through a transaction with 50 inputs, 100 inputs, 1000 inputs. and then see how many times people have made a genuine(not attack) transaction of such. to set an arbitrary rule to ignore transactions with such amount of inputs, just like they ignore transactions with no fee.

#2 1) also educate people how to code/make transactions with least bloat/random use of inputs. to help them decrease their own cost of sending a tx, aswell as helping reduce chances of verification time problems.
#2 2) its a little too early to push the transaction fee up.. id say it should be a slow process over years-decades, not a rush job to try making 3000+ transactions every 10 minutes have high fee's meaning the fee naturally increases because there are only 2000 transactions(average) allowed in per block.
imagine it. 3000 tx pay 4c.. 2000 get allowed in block1 and 1000 in block2.. then the next 3000 tx only 1000 is in block 2 and 2000 are in block 3. meaning that if the 3rd set of transactions have any hope of getting in block 4 or 5 they are likely to have to pay a premium to fight off competition..
so within 5 blocks the price begins to rise.

the fee is not an essential part of mining income. it is just a small bonus. it does not need to, nor should offset the reward for many years. because the reward is part of the mechanism that helps the speculation of the deflationary price(price rise). by flooding miners with lots of coins will make them spend them just as fast which not only affects the valuation of bitcoin. but also pushes miners to add more ASICS, and raising the difficulty. making bitcoin more centralized due to the smaller pools losing the competition. also pushing customers/users away from bitcoin because a fee does not actually guarantee the very next block(no guarantee of confirmation in 10 minutes)
pushing the fee has a knock on affect on many aspects. and there is no logic to push it too fast.

#3 agreed. allowing twice as much buffer room(2mb) to grow, or even 4x as much buffer room(2mb+segwit) allows for NATURAL SLOW growth without pushing or irritations and without demanding to dev-team for just an extra spoon of buffer every couple months knowing it takes 2 years to get the spoon.

#4 i personally am not in BU camp, xt camp, classic camp or core camp. i just want more buffer space without beeding to be spoonfed by developers. BU is the premiss that there needs no hard limit. and miners can set their own preferential soft limits. but best to ask someone(hopefully they reply unbiasedly) who has researched it in more detail

#5 i agree it doesnt need to be a classic OR core. it needs both. in combination

edit
your final sentence answered the #1 for yourself and more elegantly then i did

well the goodwife even had the main character (female lawyer) buy it and her son talk about what it is, without much drama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SohEf5dF45g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fazu1rgr9k

silicon valley mentioned one of the coders would like to be paid in bitcoin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqlVU1VWAhw

jeopardy didnt even mention drugs, porn or scams either, only mentioning it being a digital decentralized currency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFnCkxc8tCo

as for shows like NCIS:LA, CSI:cyber, blacklist, they are shows about crimes, murder and other stuff. so ofcourse the context of mentioning bitcoin is going to be about the bad stuff..

take a different topic.. .. morphine... a cop show like Chicago PD talks about illegal drug dealers.. but a hospital show Chicago ER talk about how morphine helps people.. same directors, same writers, but different type of show.

so if you are a fan of crime thrillers, expect your favourite shows to mention bitcoin negatively. but if you are a comedy/drama fan. then expect something less negative

https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=OVH%20SAS - bitcoin core using online services
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Hetzner%20Online%20GmbH - bitcoin core using online services
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Hetzner%20Online%20AG%20RZ - bitcoin core using online services

i dont believe sybil attacks are good for either side.  but lets not get deluded and pretend its only one side doing it.
the only difference with the blockstream fanboys is that they are using lesser known services

the list i linked is not up to date. but it atleast helps to prove that its not just blakclist and the goodwife that mentioned bitcoin

movies such as: Dope    also mentioned bitcoin. im sure that bitcoin is mentioned in alot more movies and tv shows. but trying to find a definitive list thats upto date is hard

or no mining at all and is just grabbing 200btc from you and handing it out as 0.00x each to thousands of people each day.

good keep them.
but be sure to have enough evidence to link his email to his real life name
after all it may not be Jason Boyko

and MR X can just say 'jason Who?'

also this may not be some good news to read. seems like he is a known scammer since 2014
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885224.0

lesson 5.
as part of lesson 1 google the name and see if he has a reputation

its a POBOX/virtual office/drop box address.

normally finders fee are 10% so im presuming you handed 200btc to a complete stranger?

first of all a lesson for everyone reading this.
do not hand any funds to anyone, especially using a non refundable mechanism. if you do not know enough about the person to slap them with a wet fish, face to face, should they do you wrong

second lesson
if you do find them. make sure you have proof that you owned the originating funds, proof that the scammer owned the destination address and proof that links that person back to you.

lesson three
if you can prove who they are, prove you sent them funds. you then have to prove what the purpose of the transaction was. many scammers have tried to say that it was a donation. or a gift. which cant be proved .or denied. thus get the proof to show it was not a gift.

lesson four.
to avoid the headaches of lessons 2 and 3 learn lesson one until your certain

nope
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_references_in_TV_Shows

show	season	episode
The Good Wife	3	13
The Simpsons	25	7
Jeopardy	30	64
Almost Human	1	6
Person Of Interest	3	13
House Of Cards	2	2
Almost Human	1	13
Parks and Recreation	6	16
HBO Silicon Valley	1	3
The Simpsons	26	1
Navy CIS LA	6	2
Supernatural	10	4
Jeopardy	31	67
Marry Me	1	12
Morgan Spurlock Inside Man	3	5

point 2 will be fixed, yet blockstream introduced RBF as the new way to 'con' merchants. ultimately there is still a problem

point 3 actually reduces point 1. its like having a 10 bedroom house each room has a bunk bed. but then you let the neighbours kids take the top bunk. such as the fat kid known as confidential payment codes(250bytes extra bloat per tx). while making your own kids get adopted by the neighbours(sidechains) and you charge them 60cents each time they want to come home for the day, hoping they eventually stay at the neighbours because the family home is too crowded

point 5, along with no-witness mode, along with pruned mode reduces the real fullnode count which makes point 4 more of a headache if there are less real honest fullnodes.

thats under the assumtion that with a 2mb buffer.. miners will allow themselves to jump to 1.995mb of data instantly.

the real assumtion is however just like in 2013. miners knew they suddenly became able to grow passed the 500k bug and utilize the 1mb buffer. but it took a couple years for them to slowly grow,
and that was the decision of the miners.

we should not leave it to blockstream to set a 1.1mb limit every 2 years knowing that miners will be at the max in maybe 4 months.
instead it should be a 2mb buffer and then let the miners have their own separate preferential rules to grow slowly and just ignore obvious spam transactions until they drop out of the mempool after 48 hours.
knowing that they can happily grow by 0.1mb very 4months+ without needing to ask blockstream for permission or receive abuse or insults

analogy
knowing one day you are going to have 19 children in the next xx years(you already have 9 and live in a 10bedroom house).
(1.9mb data in x years time, currently at 900k data with a 1mb buffer)
would you go through the headache of 2 years of mortgages and legal stuff to get an 11 bedroom house then another 2 years of headaches for a 12 bedroom house
or would you:
go through one headache and get a 20 bedroom house and then spend the next 20 years impregnating your wife 10 times, slowly gaining a child once every couple years.

i know segwit tries to say, lets stay with 10 rooms and fit in some bunkbeds.. so more kids can fit into the 10 rooms. but the problem is that blockstreams other features. like confidential transaction codes. makes all the kids obese with twice the amount of clothing that needs storing too.. so the house becomes overcrowded and slow to get everyone ready in the morning.
which leads to blockstream to instead of expanding to a 20 bedroom house. pushes some of the kids to get adopted by the neighbours(sidechains). and only allowed to visit the real family home if they pay rent

we are currently throwing random scenario numbers around.
my assumption was rasp2 using old software where quadratics was an issue compared to april rasp3 where it wasnt an issue
making not only a ghz performance increase (ill yield to your 2309) but then a multiple gain due to the code efficiency increase

what would be best is to use real bitcoin data as the ultimate goal rather then random scenario speculation

your assumption that quadric wont be solved in april.
also if 1000 has 33% increase=1333
2000 =2666
so i was using single sig before april(i even bracketed that i understated it for simple maths) and comparing it to scaling after april using technology available in april and code changes after april which make th quadratic debate meaningless

but ultimately my maths was simplified so will leave you to do the more detailed maths

yep LN code for bitcoin is not really active.. otherwise we would be using it.

many coders think of best case scenarios. but hardly ever hack it.

even during 2009-2016 the coders say bitcoin works because other people cant hack it, meaning they leave it for others to find out its weaknesses and pretend everything is perfect until a weakness is found.

30 million users making a transaction..each.. ONCHAIN to lock their funds into LN

then 1 transaction ONCHAIN filled with 30million-60million outputs to settle the balances with the destination while also returning the 'change' to the originator meaning atleast 2 outputs. destination and origin, for every input.

now do the maths