pools wont vote for either side unless they know nodes can handle it.. pools are smart enough to know about the risks of having nodes that cant validate data.

thats what the 65% undecided are waiting for..

it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.
not a pool first, node second.

you mean instead of aircon/fans to cool the asics..

eg
have a chimney that sucks the heat up and away from the asics and through a pipe that then goes to a generator or to heat water.
yep that can gain some efficiency, but not much.

---

as a side note people need to know. that power stations are already producing a minimum amount of electric. even if not being used they need to be running. so electric gets wasted.

at the moment the world is trying to convert Mongolia into a developed country. so having a power plant producing X, but while the area is not developed only 0.001% of X is being used, so 99.999% of X just gets wasted and unused.

letting asic farms use 0.y% of X on the cheap helps the asic farm and also helps the power plant from just wasting X, while the region grows and develops its residential, industrial and retail to then utilise X aswell.

and this CV who will it be handed to when these devs want a job and move away from working on bitcoin?
and ALL the money(fiat) where is it coming from.

yep
core devs are getting paid by bankers and want jobs working with bankers.. look at blockstream getting into bed with hyperledger.
look at all the unpaid blockstream fanboys working as interns showing off their loyalty to blockstream hoping for a job with blockstream and the banks.

this is what LN is about. but with one extra feature the OP has missed.  multisigs

Bob and Alice both transmit an public key to each other of both a bitcoin and litecoin format.(empty address contains no funds)
1bobsbitcoinaddress
1alicesbitcoinaddress
these are both combined to create the bitcoin multisig
3bobaliceBTCmultisigaddress

Lbobsbitcoinaddress
Lalicesbitcoinaddress
these are both combined to create the litecoin multisig
3LbobaliceLTCmultisigaddress

alice puts the altcoin into 3LbobaliceLTCmultisigaddress
bob puts the bitcoin into 3bobaliceBTCmultisigaddress

now the funds are inside locked. the funds need both sides to sign each multisig. meaning not one person can move the funds alone
because both the multisigs have CLTV and CSV both parties have a mutually agreed destruction penalty if they dont agree to sign

now your twisting things again.
the pools are not the government but the pools are the ones that collate the data for the nodes to validate to confirm or reject. the pools need to know what is the acceptable format and flag their acceptance of that format.

your twisting consensus. please learn consensus

yes consensus  of 5000+ nodes and yes pools are a node too decide what format is acceptable.
but its the nodes that decide the general agreement of what format is acceptable .. then the pools pools flag to agree on producing that format. and the nodes then validate it, accepting/rejecting what the pools produce. ofcourse if 5000+ want on thing the pools will follow, or risk losing their income while wasting electric for nothing. but the pools need to wave their hand in their air to show when they will begin. so that the nodes are ready.

again think about consensus

kind of strange how you desired 12 devs and 90 interns to be the government. but then twist consensus into myths, ifs, and maybe's of non dev collusion.
please put your rational hat back on. you had a good 24 hours hours of thinking rationally, dont go putting your fanboy hat on again

moving from 1mb to the scenario of 1.3mb over a few days is a natural and risk averting logical thing. jumping from 1mb straight to 1.3mb in minutes is not logical, rational or risk averting.

check out my post above.. where gmaxwell calls anything not segwit an altcoin. yet its segwit that is currently not activated on the mainnet.. yet other implementations he wants to fight against. including old bitcoin nodes are altcoins in his mind.

screw it here you go, saves you scrolling

yes he wants to call bitcoin0.8-bitcoin0.12 nodes an altcoin if a pools wanted to stick to those old nodes and refuse to upgrade to bitcoin0.13 just to flag desire for. and refuse to wait for the actual segwit node 0.14 that will only be released after activation.

funny part is an altcoin is something thats not actively running on the network..
in short.. how can something not on the network affect the network its not on.

EG how can ltc block an important bitcoin improvement on the bitcoin network.. it cant.

only an active bitcoin node on the network can be able to block something different from getting onto the network. meaning the blocker is bitcoin and the blockee is the alt

the 10min rule is an average of a indirect rule.... not a direct rule in itself

some blocks can take an hour+ some can take <2minutes.
changing the difficulty and rewards and halvings and everything else still does not guarantee a 5min expectation.. only an average

this may still be <2min-1hour+. but a higher majority happening in a shorter period.
while screwing with so many bitcoin features that should not be touched.

pools already have issues filling blocks with new tx's if a block is solved in 2 minutes, causing empty blocks.. while its checking the last block. so this 'empty block' result will occur more often
thus its not actually helping to get more transactions confirmed longterm. infact it can make less transactions get confirmed

(facepalm)

i understand the human utility of desire for faster confirms... but
but to do such, has many ramifications and complexity and having to change many things that can affect and risk many other things.
EG it messes with the coin creation metric. difficulty rate. and also difficulty retarget time. and many other things.

for instance. the difficulty retarget (2016blocks in 2 weeks) would become 2016 blocks a week
for instance. the block reward halving(210000 blocks (every 4 years)) would become every 2 years

so then does the decision becomes:
let the reward halvings happen every 2 years meaning 21mill cap stays but cap reached in 66yrs instead of 132yrs
or move the goalposts and end up having more than 21mill coins

to implement it, is not only far more tweaking bitcoin away from bitcoins main rules that should not be changed. but also to implement and activate
is more of a hard controversial fork that could more easily lead to an intentional split.

firstly the 10min expectation is not actually the bitcoin rule..
no tx is guaranteed to be accepted in 10 minutes.

the rule of bitcoin is that 2016 blocks should be produced in a fortnight. no rule that forces a tx into a block. no rule that forces XXXX tx's per block either. so bitcoin could have empty blocks forever and actually meet its protocol rules.
the 10minute per block is dividing 2 weeks by 2016 blocks..

---

now lets get into the details of the transactions..

an average block can only store ~2200tx or max of 1mb of data
check the mempool count.. yep more than 2200tx or 1mb waiting most of the time.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions  - 3blocks of tx's waiting at time of writing this post = ~30min wait for some tx's(using velkro's very simplistic time overview of bitcoin confirms)

yea sometimes the mempool count can be low and all tx's get into a block promptly. other times it can take a couple blocks or upto an hour. depending on demand, and other criteria

id say the data is not bad. its actually accurate.. you just have to understand the context of the data.

---

so here is the context.

not everyone pays excess/top fee to be first inline. some pay minimum fee which then gets outbid by 2200 others who pay slightly higher so that the minimum payer is left waiting lower in the queue..

and yep some pay no fee at all. meaning they wont get accepted for hours. and its things like paying minimum or no fee that push the range of times out. which then affect the average time..

im sure people can go through the data and selectively delete out the tx's of zero fee.. but then getting selective/creative/manipulative over what tx's are deemed worthy of being part of someones expectations. is what starts being 'manipulative' and causing bad data

---

edit
i just checked the couple hundred tx's with 0 fee.. average confirm time was 5 hours 7 minutes 37 seconds

funny part is there were even tx that paid over $100 at the time (last week btcprice over $1k/btc) 0.1btc and the average of these big spenders
were 11mins 32secs (basically bribbed their way to the top of the list) with silly huge fee's

txid: 61d9e2841e462f0a73668bf37601f2c021e9a90a3810ef654a21063b5722840a
txid: 3a5546217b76ae91f0fd113dc7f8c863fd9099ab62abedaa71f2a856ccd48d6f
txid: 2fce0c36505aece2fa77df5f3bc02cf7d5ffe5231e7a41597b51d4a2ffb61383
txid: 3ea07465f19e188535766c1d4f60b6b5b968294212a5778b65ed13889c753636
txid: 0c48281a819ca34ae837297e1ece737dc779d7eee0025c8a46e4e87fc6658696
txid: d8d194e4ae415323a90a56cd999e2e7cca9dfe13258a4e82469223b8f2fbbc8c
txid: d14d0ddbdc269ebe09174a9d02e85b13c9ae97fc27e6e57cba196ef7c46ddab3
txid: 99901d44db56788b74999c0f6b4f3bc1c960fec61761b447be878ae1721ec6e4
txid: e78f3045c8348ff5882da99c0f8555294d889b641c820c82cc6f3ab62df103b0
txid: f6bf8c706fabb59489b1152cac038c69dbd565bd23dfed35d8131a08a655b846
txid: 415856aefeb42a6050abb8ec9b66b8a3688fd24632f36299b5deebf1a16e5c85
txid: e9ad2d09ec5de999b723ce8e74667243ccb7656ce09920c2b76fd91dea8b89ff
txid: 5ce70be2cf3163fad5192daf8356f9819f79622894c510c192929e78a714b332
txid: adf3dccfa9b2e24a5dfe7c997e927f6ac6865780c78f8afed388f34603883033

gmaxwell has a trick up his sleeve..
he can cause a hardfork to get a softfork activated. by deliberately orphaning blocks that oppose segwit. not because the block data is bad.. but purely because its not voting in favour of segwit.


so funny that blockstream/core said that all the segwit data was good and backward compatible. but now suggesting everyone should upgrade to be full nodes and that they can even orphan off blocks to get their way(hard fork)..

if the data was truely backward compatible there should be no reason to orphan.. thats the point of why a softfork was promoted and how it was promised to the community. to not cause disruption by/of orphans.

my personal number that i think is safe differs to blockstreams 95%..
but i only mentioned 95% because blockstream would send in the usual intern centralist bandwaggon if i said anything different. so to avoid argument i just used their numbers so they cant argue..

anyway,
when user nodes set their settings the consensus is measured and the pools are the ones that decide when to push out blocks with the least risk.
yes pools choose when, as its in their interest to not lose $12k in 10minutes.

logically even if there is a clear majority (pick random number of majority all you like).. pools will then do their own flagging of intent.

EG imagine nodes new limit will be 1.3mb by large majority consensus.. then pools flag also has majority consensus to say yes too..
but when activating it.. they are going to be smart.

first block after activation... 1.001mb then slowly get to the 1.3mb over time
they are not irrationally going to push out a 1.3mb block the very next block after activation. they will test the water.
it might take 2 days and 2 hours(0.001mb) increments per block(2days *144blocks per day=288+12blocks in 2hours =300 adjustments) to see the orphan risk as it climbs to 1.3mb new limit.

thats the logical and safe way.

no point giving roger Ver the blame or fame. Ver only had ~10% so dont let blockstream make you believe Ver alone..

it's the other 65% that were not in agreement with blockstream aswell...
but we all know blockstream are gonna ply lots of investors with alcohol and free drinks in miami this month. so we will soon see if those investors linked to mining farms suddenly change their minds after a bit of blockstream ass kissing

seriously??

you been fanboying core for a year and you dont know where the 95% i mentioned originated..
it was core that set the bar so high.

but have a nice day

most EU/UK debit cards are actually bank account cards. so exchanges would ask you to wire transfer them funds using that facility of your bank account. rather than using the long mastercard number.

electric is not the issue. its the cost of buying the asic.

EG ~$450 electric(USA)...  asic $2100

its the asic that puts a real dent into ROI for miners.
you have to be an asic manufacturer making a rig for $400 just to break even.. we all know antpool is doing it and loving it.

united nations of hyperledger..

using the median and then finding a random size after that is foolish
imagine your numbers..
randomly saying that 25%=1.375mb.. no.. 1.2    1.2    1.3 are all excluded . meaning its 30% node drop/orphan risk based on 1.375mb figure
randomly saying that 40%=1.84mb..  yes.. 1.2   1.2    1.3  1.6 are all excluded . meaning its 40% node drop/orphan risk based on 1.84mb figure

where and why would you choose a random number of 1.375 or 1.84 is another variable of debate.. afterall to a 2mb node(next number after 1.6mb) will be wondering why halt at 1.87mb if no one is saying they cant cope with 1.88-1.99.

there is too much iffyness and orphan risk of medians.
especially the way you played around after, to get your magic numbers.

now i think about it. its not "least common figure", i was thinking of.  its to sort the amounts into ascending order.. take off 5% of results from smallest end.. and then whatever the lowest number of what is left is the acceptable (lowest of 95% is the new buffer size)
EG

1     1.2     1.2     1.2     1.3     1.3     1.6     1.6     2     2     3      3      5     5      6     6      8      8      17     17

also where you said 1 node can hold it up. i said 5% so based on 5000 nodes, more than 250 nodes would need to hold at 1mb to hold it up. not just one node.


people can have a PHD in anything.. bitcoin physics and theoretic's is not covered in their syllabus. also some have had PHD's before the millenium so dont expect the tech they learned about is the same tech available today.. IT PhD's get outdated faster than most peoples wives.

dont ideally trust someone because of qualifications.. without understanding what that qualification actually taught or didnt teach.
do you even know when these PhD guys even got their qualifications and what technologies were available at the time.

he may mean display his address publicly but have a private admin page to se progress.

or he may mean private as in personal.. meaning not hosted on some service people need to visit. but his own personal site

the numbers for average txbytes over 8 years has changed. EG 2009 was under 250 and it become more over time.

the numbers of the OP's data in the spreadsheet is only numbers of 1m tx's which is well under 500 blocks = less than a week of data so its not going to reveal much long term change just short term.

i did do a few selective averages of
0-335k tx's  = 447byte
335k-666k tx's =473byte
666k-1m tx's =454byte

and they all average about 447bytes - 473bytes


using old legacy transactions
((148 * inputsused) + (34 * outputs used) ) +-10 variance = tx size estimate

as for multisigs. well that a whole different calculation to work out the bytes of a tx, as there are more variables involved
im sure someone else has found a workable calculation to work it out for multisigs.
but to answer your question. multisigs do use more bytes per tx.. if you were to compare a 2in 2out multsig to a 2in 2out legacy tx

oh and lets not forget LN's settlments which will also include extra bytes for CLTV and CSV data will bloat a tx even if its still just a 2in 2out.
yep segwit suggests more tx space but then LN settlements then refill that space with larger tx's..