blockchain projects do not just mean creating an altcoin.
it can mean a service

bitpay is a blockchain project
trezor is a blockchain project
merchant tools and data analyst tools to visualise blockchain data is a blockchain project
asic manufactoring is a blockchain project
smart contracts is a blockchain project
retail support to accept crypto is a blockchain project
conference organising for cryptocurrncy meetups is a blockchain project
blockchain consulting
clothing manufacturing featuring crypto memes/logo's is a blockchain project

there is much much more to it than just making an altcoin

FTFY

if never used it will just show no transactions linked to that address.. when checking block explorers.
to 'save' all possible addresses would require storage beyond any measure/availability today

---

there are 904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675 possible private keys

use this http://gobittest.appspot.com/Address
type in 1 at: '0 - Private ECDSA Key' text box
it will give you: 1EHNa6Q4Jz2uvNExL497mE43ikXhwF6kZm  at: '9 - Base58 encoding of 8' text box

type in 2 at: '0 - Private ECDSA Key' text box
it will give you: 1LagHJk2FyCV2VzrNHVqg3gYG4TSYwDV4m  at: '9 - Base58 encoding of 8' text box

continue for as long as you like until your fingers burn out from keyboard friction.. or even make a script to automate it.
the number is so huge it wont matter.

---

you can build a new script that not only makes the keypairs for your computer to store
requiring storage way way way beyond even a yottabyte hard drive


then if checking the balance. which by the way requires much more computational power and bandwidth.

seeing as how there are 904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675 possibilities
and imagining you could check lets say 1000 addresses a second.

1000                     =1 sec   
60000                     =1 min   
3600000                  =1 hour   
86400000                 =1 day   
31536000000            =1 year   
788400000000           =1 family generation   
78840000000000        =100 family generation(ancestors)   

after 2500 years your ancestors would have only checked
78840000000000   possibles

in other words after 2500 years your ancestors would have
904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102758203110636675 still to go
of
904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675

a normal tx is one that has to be signed by 1 person.

a 'contract' is a tx with extra conditions.
for instance
1. a tx required to be signed by more than one person to be deemed valid, where the value being sent to the destinations gets agreed on by all required signers.
2. a tx where the value is only spendable at a certain event.

an example of (2) is the blockreward can only be spent after 100 block confirmations.
an example of (1) is the multisig can only be spent if signed by more than one person.

Lightning network for instance utilises a few of these contract conditions.

a channel is in simple terms just a multisig. a tx which 2 people need to agree on who deserves what amount and both sign. it also has other conditions in that contract that the funds can only be spent after X date/blockheight. and a further condition that 1 party can revoke the other party in certain circumstance.

1. Core (LukeJR) GAVE pools the electoral powers. pools did not take or ask for it
2. Core (gmax and a couple others) removed many fee control mechanisms.. again pools didnt ask for it nor demand it


now to address the questions
to have the functionality of new keypairs can only occur after an activation. and once majority of nodes is there to validate such new keypairs which would be weeks after activation
EG segwit keypair function wont be available for weeks AFTER segwit activation. and then its too late to let users vote on segwit tier network anyway because its already there.

in the future we could have an update where a spare byte is used to allow users a poll. but from a protocol stance it would be meaningless.
the BS cartel will just plow alot of tx fee's into any agenda they like and get their funds back through the pools they control.

EG blockstream/barrysilbert cartel have control/partnership with BTCC
so could bait the opposition by including 50btc fee that BTCC accepts into BTCC block(but doesnt relay the unconfirms to other pools)to make oppositions think they are losing out. when infact its just BTCC building blocks filled with tx's paying themselves and returning fee's to themself and respending that fee again and again to themselves(meaning no actual cost/loss).

---

much like the 3card/shell street hustle game
hustler sets up 3 cards. a stranger puts a $1 note down with a promise he will get $10 choosing the right card/shell... he wins. and walks away with $10, to gain spectator interest.
what people dont realise is the stranger that wins is the hustlers friend and hands the $10 back to the hustler before doing the same again an hour later

---

either way this topics proposal and UASF would just still remain as faking the election and avoiding real consensus to push in features that would normally get forgotten.

whats needed is core and the BS cartel to take no/abstain as an answer and go back to the drawing board. not fake the election to push it through.

soft bilateral split does not = safe upgrade. uasf's soft bilateral split is even worse than a hard consensus..
soft bilateral split it just means its all about messing with the pools blocks to fake the vote to reach 95%+.

starting at under 35% and trying to burn out the opposition is much like trump having 35% of election ballot papers and burning 65% to fake a 100% election win.

thats not safe, not consensus and not even legit.
what core should be doing is accepting no/abstain as the answer and start a new manifesto. not fake the election by destroying valid votes simply because they say no/abstain to keep the same manifesto in play

UASF = election rigging

and dont rebut with the failed reddit scripts of 'china jihan ver'   the 65% is not due to a country nor due to 2 people.

bitcoin has hundreds of thousands of merchants. the DCG BS cartel can only get 60-70 signatures and even those have a few double signed by the same guys

dont pretend its a 2 man vs the world thing..

dynamic block proposals are bigger than 2 men. seems ur stuck in the realm of the reddit fud scripter.
what you need to realise is that dynamic block proposals NEVER made threats to nuke the network, never set deadlines and only allowed consensus to decide if people want it.

in short they just plod along doing nothing until consensus is formed to activate it. in which case the network activates it consensually.

UASF is using force, intimidation, FUD, faux-buzz wording, network splitting methods, deadlines.
goodluck with a UASF minority split which puts the network into a cludge of a tier network and giving control to the blockstream/DCG cartel. enjoy your BS coin

why not just back up your wallet to a usb key and only use the funds when you really need them

there is no need to move funds on chain just to move them off your computer.

---

also the average unspend output is 148 bytes when used as an input.

so looking at the fee's of 330sat/byte
=0.00048840 per unspent

only look at the unspents that are way MORE than 0.00048840.
anything below that is just adding data bloat to a tx but not getting any 'returns'/change from having them there after fee
so no point including them as part of the tx

EG - analogy
imagine a penny weight 2.5grams..
imagine a 5pence piece weight 2grams..

but it costs 1penny to deliver 2.5grams

posting 100 penny's costs you 250grams or £1 postage..    giving you nothing in return.. you spent the contents on the postage of the contents

but if you post 5pence pieces of 2grams
you can post 5x 5pence pieces(10gram) and only pay 4penny fee  .. giving you 21pence change.

its about being smart with what you send.. sifting through your coins and dont include the small dust(coin/unspents) amounts that are less than the fee to send the dust..

---

but, with that said still easier to just back up the privatekey/seed on multiple devices and then you dont have to spend them onchain.

both sides can agree that 4mb of data is safe.. both sides agree that 8mb is safe but 4mb is ultra safe.. so lets just go with 4mb
whereby nodes can edit this at runtime without dev spoon feeding when the time comes to upgrade again
taking away the need of the upstream downstream cludge. and removes the need to kill pools out of pure bias

both sides know that dynamic and segwit alone does not solve native quadratics, only keeping txsigops down will..  so lets just go with never no more than 4k txsigops as a proper rule(not cludgy math)

both sides admit that going soft(pool only) consensus wont work thus soft bilateral split(more dangerous is softs second option) so its time to just get on with a hard(node and pool) consensus(left dangerous than soft bilateral split).

knowing a hard consensus can happen less dangerously. just get on with it

in short..
1merkle block of 4mb - whereby nodes can edit this at runtime without dev spoon feeding when the time comes to upgrade again
4k txsigops never changes
include new features like new keypairs segwit, schnorr, new contract functions(if, else)

that way everyone gets what they want.
native and segwit keys get proper utility of the 4mb area without math cludge
quadratics is not a problem due to the txsigop limit
all the voluntary keypair available so no excuses from either side to develop new features/contracts/side/off chain functionality
that way everyone gets what they want

the DCG is just drama for the same empty promise.
check blockstream in the DCG list
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

Gmaxwell pretends he opposes UASF yet he helped employ the main UASF advocate
https://blockstream.com/team/samson-mow/

as for barry silbert claiming to have "economic majority".. well yea his portfolio of bribed companies are impressive where he has ownership stakes in each.. his portfolio does not cover the economic majority. there are more than 60 businesses involved in bitcoin. so all these questionaires and declarations by ~60/70 businesses, is just one side of the story

things i didnt see coming is the majority of people thinking corporate take over of the devs, as being good..
seems it only takes half a decade to take over something that had morals and ethics

lol

so many people think its just a ver+jihan Vs the world..... (mega facepalm)

33% of pools hashpower accept segwit... not 67%.... 33%
even core fanboys only have a Satoshi:0.14.1(31.74%) uptake of staying uptodate.
even the ones that explicitly want segwit all cannot agree on UASF as the method.

those wanting segwit are not keeping upto date. thus dont expect uptopia.. expect drama of orphans and double spends

so come august 1st dont expect everyone to be changing over to the tier network

UASF is the worse way to try to force something in that not everyone wants..
if you think only 2 people dont want it. your deluded

seriously?
core gave only pools the vote not a node+pool proper consensus = nodes blame pools = dividing the network (should blame devs that gave only pools vote)

core removed the fee structure and trned it into a fee war = users blaming each other = dividing the network (should blame devs that removed fee code)

core used cludgy code and manipulating maths of empty promises and half gestures = dividing the network (should blame devs that avoided 1merkle version)

core are avoiding hard(node+pool) consensus. and going for nasty soft bilateral split = dividing the network (should blame devs that avoided hard consensus)

i think core took the 'go to the moon' request too literally.. throw the network into an uninhabitable area where nothing can breath and grow aka the moon

segwit is 'suppose' to solve the current troubl of bitcoin.  which is the cost and time between transactions. which those issues have arisen by the same group that are now pretending to have the fix.

but segwit will not fix the issues. its just bait and switch.
UASF is just a way to avoid consensus and force the cludge through without having to do the real consensus method of features that will actually help.

my stance has not changed.
i see all this stuff as just a patch work of distractions/ efforts to change things.
yep
craig wright drama times precisely around the last 3 main closed door round table meetings of the last couple years
segwit half gestures not providing real long term features, just used to delay/distract things to push other things
the BS cartel having a portfolio of services and employee's that can sway things in different directions

maybe BS cartel move over to litecoin by getting bitpay/coinbase to switch the merchant API services to accept litecoin and drop bitcoin.
but until that actually happens bitcoin will still be the main currency.

maybe BS cartel move over to new altcoins (sidechains) and drop bitcoin.
but until that actually happens bitcoin will still be the main currency.

i see alot more than people realise and see many directions can play out in many directions. but its not just one event that would lead to a change its a patchwork of changes. with lots of baits and switches
eg bs cartel removing the fee control mechanisms to push bitcoin fee's up(bait) then blame the pools(switch)
bs cartel using an exploit to go soft(bait) but then reveal it can cause issues so now proposing a soft controversial/bilateral split(switch), which is worse then a hard consensus upgrade.
bs cartel still avoiding a safer hard consensus where real benefits and features can be included, because they want to remain the string holders

all in all its the BS cartel pretending to be bitcoin advocates but slowly strangling bitcoin and trying to move people offchain or to alternative networks.
all while the top of the BS cartel pyramid are working towards hyperledger which the BS cartel are desperate to be part of once they mess with the bitcoin (as that call it: experiment)

UASF translates to this

if bip9 segwit is not activated by august 1st 2017...  bip148 starts to run too..
pools are then made to flag a certain flag
"set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment)."
and any block that does not. will get rejected. (causing orphans and block drama between august and november.

this is to falsify a 100% acceptance of sgwit by only displaying blocks that flag it.

yep the blocks getting rejected are valid blocks but being fraudulently ignored purely to falsify the results of a bip9 flag

its like having a general election but then burning the ballot papers of anyone not voting (uk) tory (us) republican. just to get a 33% vote to appear as a 100% vote for (uk) tory (us) republican.

---

core have don this
1. removed the many fe mechanisms that made tx fee's fair
2. removed real consensus with their 'soft' baiting
3. promised the unpromisable
4. provided nothing of benefit.

and now causing more drama. blaming everyone else..
and soon all the main core team are going to move over to litecoin. even gmaxwell has hinted this. along with gmaxwells main funding 'boss' DCG has shown desire of litecoin.

first: you cant resegit a segwit. so segwit doesnt "scale"

if core are now wanting to hard fork, atleast do it without the cludgy code.

billy and pereira4 repeat the same crap without understanding it. use the same graphics use the same rhetoric. im guessing its the same person double spamming posts for sig campaign income

the only reason they feel asicboost is bad is because it stops going soft.. going 2 merkle cludge was to avoid going hard. so if going hard you dont need two merkle cludge.. so if core now wanna go hard it makes it a non issue

meaning just make it a mandatory 1 merkle block of 4mb where native and segwit keys can all work in the same area where everyone benefits
include all the other features the community want but only able to happen in a hard consensus.. and just pull the trigger

pretending they can do a hard consensus in 3 months by naming it something else(UASF MASF) but then pretend another hard consensus taked 18 months is stupid misdirecting bullcrap of the core team.


just make a non cludgy upgrade, release it and make it mandatory. yep a 1 merkle block, proper scaling available version that includes all the keypair types everyone wants, native, segwit, schnorr.

stop with all of these half gesture cludgy crap
"51%-80% attack" just to force a cludgy temporary 2 merkle crap is not the best plan. and makes no logical sense

if the trigger is to be pulled. atleast do a f*cking proper job

until litecoin starts advertising that 500,000 merchants accept LTC (using coinbase/bitpay merchant shopping cart api tools). then LTC is not going no where, its just speculative hype

as for the LTC segwit drama.. im laughing.
even the pools are still using legacy/native tx's(L addresses) for their blockrewards which shows how little they care to actually use segwit(3 addresses).
discusfish(f2pool) - LajyQBeZaBA1NkZD...
litecoinpool.org - LTCPodKwHJoVsRJn...
givemecoins - LachGCFMERH3SbVB...
multipool.us - LTr4CoxaLaKLRn9x...
if they actually needed/wanted it you should have seen by now the pools advocating for segwit to actually be using segwit keypairs by now.

this has not happened which just goes to show the reality of the situation.

just pushing for activation is meaningless unless pools and users are actually going to use it

1. its just more efficient method of mining. just like the GPU mining days of OpenCL vs kuda
2. asicboost is as much of an exploit as going soft is an exploit

3. to simplify it. its all about who should use the spare space of a block header.
A. asics
B. soft fork

4. if a hard consensus is needed then devs dont need the spare space to soft fork, because they are going hard so dont need cludgy code reliant on the spare block header space

anyone with brains does not care about the market cap.

all that matters is utility.
what people should be looking at is suggestions of say bitpay/coinbase stop allowing bitcoin to be used through the merchant shopping cart API and instead eth or LTC becoming the merchant shopping cart accepted currency of bitpay/coinbase