everyone ignore the troll with the initials C B
he does not know the difference between a consensus fork and a intentional split

especially when its only been core that have been begging everyone else to intensionally split(bilateral)
kind of foolish for him to bait a reply with twisting the rhetoric of who wants what, by pretending its the community wanting it when its obviously the segwit fans..

a hard fork is just an empty umbrella term that has several subcategories.. a hard fork buzzword is meaningless if you dont understand which subcategory has been proposed.

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

funny how when they say softfork they use best case scenario.
funny how when they say hardfork they use worse case scenario. as if worse case is the plan, when its not.

the community want in general "consensus", preferable one where nodes have involvement (harder to achieve).

not that surprising.. it was well announced.
"bitmain new xinjiang farm"

i remember in november/december antpool(bitmain) announcing they were adding a new farm. which would be live by december.
they were at about ~330phash then. now at 500peta.

orphan risk can lead to double spend attack as you say. so you are near spot on. especially if while orphaned a mallicious spender then uses RBF to strike off the then (re-)unconfirmed tx before its put into a new block. to substitute it with another tx where the values/destinations differ
(more so the finney attack on the next paragraph after the 'race attack' you linked, but with new features like RBF which wasnt around in hal finneys time, to make it more possible to adjust transactions when an orphan occurs).

but not to try confusing the matter more.. the reason i say 'not quite', 'more so' and 'near spot on'. is that on a usual day is 1% of orphan. the risk of a finney attack is 0.0004%.. (because you only care about 1tx of the whole block. so chances is one 2500th of 1%)
there are other things..  like someone that didnt pay a fee getting into a block.. but if that block orphans it again sits as unconfirmed but may not get into another block due to no fee.. risk of this is could be 0.25% (if pools use old preference of 25% of a block has no fee, divided by orphan risk)
there are many ways that tx's cant be trusted. not just maliciously. but also unintentionally struck off by how the network works.
but now thats getting too detailed of the behind the scenes where things are no longer static but variable and confusing
 

as for CLTV and CSV
firstly while unsettled (inside LN) CLTV and CSV are not penalties. they are just terms of agreement. but when broadcast. the tx is confirmed onchain.. and the CLTV is a maturity period (like the block rewards 100 confirm waiting period 'maturity') where it cannot be spent. and the CSV is a special output that the second party can spend the intended recipients funds before the maturity expires.

so even though its confirmed on chain the intended recipient cant spend it until matured and is at risk of the other party revoking it during maturity.

this is like paypal or a bank having a 3-5 day 'clearing period' and a chargeback able to occur in that time.
so even if you see its confirmed but unspendable, lik the bank saying unavailable balance and separately available balance. dont presume your guaranteed that 'unavailable' money until its available.

im sure all the block explorers will update their graphic user interfaces to alert people if a tx contains CLTV and CSV.. but for now it has to be done manually by knowing what to look for in the raw data

read my post again .. edited to further clarify
"just to clear the terminology up
orphaning off a block not because its invalid but because of which pool sent it. is controversial because its not an invalid block. meaning different nodes are accepting different blocks. this causes orphan drama (which will eventually sort itself out to one chain with the minor chain unable to sync)
[this is a contraversial fork that just creates orphan drama then settle down as one chain,  and minority unsynced from network]

that then [can] lead to needing to ignore the opposing nodes too [if you want the minor chain to start building its own chain without orphaning.. or if the major chain doesnt want to see the minor chain endlessly requesting and rejecting blocks.]
this is not consensus, [nor controversial, this is a intentional split aka bilateral fork]

consensus is agreement to accept the same data and same rules where the majority accept all the valid blocks (without any biased pickyness) leaving the minority simply unable to sync [ignoring blocks and nodes simply due to a 'brand war' leads to an intentional split] "

errr..

"In order to protect your long-term interest when making Bitcoin transactions, it’s important to wait for at least six network confirmations before deciding that the transaction is 100% valid. As a rule of thumb, the security of any individual transaction is closely related to its age, with older transactions being far more resistant to change when compared to new transactions."

still not completely correct.

"In order to protect your long-term interest when making Bitcoin transactions, it’s important to wait for at least enough confirmations before deciding the risk is negligible. As a rule of thumb, the security of any individual transaction is closely related to its age, with older transactions being far more resistant to change when compared to new transactions. the risk is 1%-5% dependant events, features update periods, so 6 confirms would be advised for larger value transactions"
..
the 1-5% explains and covers the reasons for 6% and also what to do at a 95% (5% risk event)
separately..
because CLTV and CSV is an actual feature compared to previous years. its important to mention tx maturity.. especially when its going to be used alot more by the time your guide gets popular.

maybe add,
"if your transaction has been involved in a locked-in contract such as a side service like Lightning, usually the expiration of maturity occurs after more than 6 confirms. but dont trust it as valid/guaranteed until the maturity expires."

p.s
no need to name drop. just ensure if its a master guide it's not glossing over the important bits people need to know

can people stop thinking china is a power house

lets simplify it

eastern exchanges: 1 person  moving 12.5btc day-trading every 30 seconds = 36,000btc "trade volume" but only 12.5btc holding
vs
western exchanges: 100 people each moving 0.01btc daytrading ever 30 seconds = 2,880btc "trade volume" but only 100x 0.01btc holding (btc)

ok.. keep that concept in mind.

now imagine out of the coins created by pools 1800btc.. where the top 6 eastern pools (50%) only put 10% in public markets (6 people 90btc combined)
imagine westerners 10btc make it to public markets and are handled by 1000 people with 0.01each (1000 people 10btc combined)

eastern: 90btc moving every 30 seconds= 259,200btc volume but only 1.5btc per person with only 6 people
vs
western: 10btc moving every 30 seconds= 28,800btc volume but only 0.01btc per person with 1000 people


so i done it twice because people think small numbers of first example is not representative of reality.. so second example is larger numbers..
but the point is volume does NOT = more users/better adoption/ more popularity / whole country involvement.

EG dynamic blocks starting 2mb base 4mb weight as default start. making both core and the community happy and then the community raise the limit when they want and need to without dev intervention/prevention.
nodes flag what they are capable of and it moves when the majority of nodes can handle it.

thus natural progressive growth and not the misinformed large leaps to gigabyte blocks by midnight false rhetoric.

everyone is happy

segwit AND dynamic blocks.

which is also something nodes with 8mb max would accept.

by doing dynamic blocks the community get the consensus to up the blocksize naturally when requires and copable.. rather than having to play another oliver twist "please sir can i have some more" game with devs in a few years if it was just a fixed dev handed limit

yep
4pence UK is an hours labour in Cuba.
84pence UK is 21 hours labour in Cuba.

so while bigname developers in america pretend that while getting $1m a year from blockstream $480 an hour. they have lost sight that $0.75 is alot. they see it as less than 1second of labour.
so while volunteer in america pretend that while getting $7.50 a hour from their day jobs. they have lost sight that $0.75 is alot. they see it as less than 6 minutes of labour. they even down play it that bitcoin is 'normally' 8cents which is about 30seconds of labour.

they cant see the big international picture

because people have talked to him via email, on forums and IRC during 2008-2010. people have also analysed his written messages and all are saying it was one person using that pseudonym.
and yes this also means he was a sane person with no multiple personality disorders.

but like i said other people with other paeudonyms helped him develop and debug bitcoin.

the entity using the satoshi pseudonym is one person. that is established.

however satoshis idea's are a patchwork of many older concepts that alone would not work but satoshi was the brainchild of patching it all together into something that works. plus adding his own customisations and extra tweaks to it. which made it special and unique

also satoshi, worked with other people. that is established. but only the single entity used the satoshi pseudonym. all the rest helping out used their own pseudonyms.

yep
as for user adoption.. UK and US are the power houses.
..developing countries are well behind and struggling due to things like tx fee's pricing them out of seeing utility in it (a tx fee can be a couple hours labour in some developing countries)

as for mining.. asia and europe are are power houses.
..western countries just cant afford the cheap manufacturing of asics or the cheap labour and cheap electric to beat the east

as for services, merchants.. US, canada and europe are the power houses.
.. again eastern/southern countries cant afford the utility of buying things with it due to fee's

the only data sent out of a wristband is public keys and signed transactions.. imagine it as next gen hardware wallets



its a new concept. disney land is already letting kids at their themeparks buy things with a wristband rather than needing to drag mum&dad along with their debit cards.
barclays uk are starting a wristband payment instead of carrying around a smart phone.

google "wristband payments",
you'll see its the new 'fitband fashion craze' thats started very recently. which has no worry of phone battery charge issues or fiddling in your pockets to enable an app. you just swipe your wrist and go.

bitcoin needs to be as simple as swiping your wrist. to allow it to be as useful as 'other payment methods'.. as we all honestly know typing in addresses/scanning qr codes and typing in decimal amounts can be irritating even for those that understand bitcoin

here are some corrections

blockchain: "It prevents double spending and counterfeited Bitcoin transactions to take place."

due to orphan risks no one should trust a transaction as soon as it confirms.
many people say to trust a transaction after 1-6 confirms to mitigate the orphan risk.. but now due to CLTV and CSV, if a tx includes a maturity time(cltv) and has a revoke commitment(CSV) you should not trust a confirmed transaction until it has matured
.. not sure how you are going to write it to sound sensible and succinct, but atleast you know the real deal about bitcoin. maybe something like.
'due to orphan and other feature risks no one should trust a transaction unconfirmed or as soon as it confirms. the more confirmations after maturity, the more you can trust it becomes immutable'

mining: "since once written onto the blockchain transactions remain unconfirmed. Mining one block usually takes about 10 minutes, depending on network difficulty."

'until written into a block and validated, transactions remain unconfirmed. mining a block, based on the rules of 2016blocks trying to maintain a 2 week target, this works out as an average of 10minutes time to make a block.. but could be as little as 2 minutes or hours, depending on the luck of mining'

trading: "Just like everything else, Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies are being actively traded on special markets. On these online exchanges, Bitcoin can be traded as a commodity."

'traded as an asset', much like forex or other items of value such as gold or silver
(note: commodities are raw materials used to create other products. dont confuse golds commodity market with golds asset market. they are 2 different things for 2 different purposes)

to make a prototype smartwatch/wristband costs under $100 (minus labour)

to have a production ready wristband that has processing power to receive UTXO and send out signed tx can be achieved for well under $50

dont get me wrong i understand the premiss your aiming for. but..

mobile phones are indestructible? batteries never need to charge? screens never crack? phones never stolen? the list goes on.

and then the utility part of making a tx when the 'tool' is not damaged.
handing over a piece of plastic
vs
having to type in decimals and calculate a fee scan a qr code and press send and then wait for merchant to see the tx..

dont get me wrong i understand the premiss your aiming for. but when you run scenarios of talking to people with such adverts of benefits of bitcoin, and hear their objections and rebuttles of actual real issues, you become aware of the real issues.

bitcoin still needs to revamp how people buy things to be competitor of the 'ease of use and less hassle' benefit.. its just not there yet

if you are talking about bloat. w all know its not a hard drive killer. 8 years of data fits on a fingernail after all.

but cores 4mb deadweight for future features vs communities desire for real 2mb lean tx's...  2 vs 4 which sounds more 'bloat'

unless its a "store card" eg walmart branded visa credit card, you are understating the time frame..
usually card issuers mail a new card which can take 10 days.

also shops using old magnetic strips have the capability to manually process using the long embossed numbers on the front side of card, taking minutes

but as you also stated FIAT economy has already bypassed the magnetic strip dilemma by having touchless NFC cards and chip and pin cards.
barclays UK also have a work around in the form of an app, called pingit, aswell as apps like (applepay) as solutions to plastic card damage.
and now even NFC wristbands,phones instead of plastic cards

so you are not using a good example for a thing bitcoin solves.

bitcoin is actually behind fiat in the ability to make a transaction. bitcoins transaction creation mechanism(user interface) and private key store, needs an overhaul.

also trying to find advantages of bitcoin to talk about in a bitcoin forum. is just preaching to the converted. theres no point advertising bitcoin to those of us already using bitcoin. whats needed are real solutions to real problems even we notice.

gmaxwell has already stated he is ok with causing a network split below 95% just to get his softwork activated

just to clear the terminology up
orphaning off a block not because its invalid but because of which pool sent it. is controversial because its not an invalid block. meaning different nodes are accepting different blocks. this causes orphan drama that then leads to needing to ignore the opposing nodes too..
this is not consensus

consensus is agreement to accept the same data and same rules where the majority accept all the valid blocks (without any biased pickyness) leaving the minority simply unable to sync