segwit would be using the bitcoin network. so segwit is not an altcoin but features of it and who programmed it does rub very much against the ethos of what bitcoin is, the way it bypasses node consensus. the lack of concern of diversity, etc.
but LN is definitely a different kettle of fish.

however segwits abilities and promises are not going to be met, compared to the utopian dream plastered out last year
EG
malleability fixed. you need to ask what was the end user experience that malleability was causing in the first place.
1. double spends.... um RBF, CPFP have been added to make double spends possible... so the fix solves nothing
2. LN working.. well LN is a dual signing mechanism. so if someone wanted to create a malleated tx with higher fee, after signing the first tx.. LN wont allow it anyway because the second tx needs dual signing anyway just like the first tx did, and the peer wont sign a second tx. so malleated transactions wont even reach a block due to not having dual signatures. in short, a peer would reject a malleated tx simply by seeing their counterpart trying to make one.

EG
TX fee
its said that the tx fee will be 75% cheaper. more accurate numbers are 40% cheaper. and due to the transaction price going from 3.5cents last year to over 7cents today. its not really making transactions 'cheaper' (not below 1cent like in 2012) but still at 3cent+ which will rise quickly due to other fee war pushing mechanisms added to the new implementation

but hey. everyone will argue that using real code to fix problems of bitcoin is meaningless because soon LN, soon sidechain will save the day.. (facepalm) pushing the problem down the road and into a different direction rather then dealing with it

you're not understanding what blockchain is.
imagine it like the difference between

DBMS - database management systems
RDBMS - relationship management systems

even your quote is saying the opposite of what your thinking.

not

in short a blockchain can work on one system. a blockchain can be edited by having multisig instead of hashes. which the owners of the keypairs have full access to.
a blockchain has no big built in technology requirements to be deemed a blockchain. it just needs something(literally anything) that links one lump of data to another lump of data.
that is all..

once you realise that the quote you pulled up is trying to specifically talk about bitcoins blockchain by talking about transactions, proof of work(mining) and decentralization.. rather than the fundamentals of a blockchain. you will realise that blockchain alone is not big of a deal. but what can be done once you add on the other options could make it a big deal.
emphasis: options added ontop.

now as for HOW the banks will use that simple mechanism.. well there are a million ways it can use it.
options outside of the term blockchain, but easily programmable in to increase security of a blockchain
it could go PoA, PoS, PoW, PoL, PoT
it could use SHA, ripemd, md6, (list goes on) or a combination
it could be central to one location, or distributed to regional hubs, distributed to local bank branches.
it could be split up. where local locations only holds one block of data per location and the region just holds the headers of all locations
it could be split up. where central location holds all data, and the region only holds the headers of all blocks
it could be split up. where specific location only holds the headers of all blocks and the region holds all data
all options are open
now all the stuff above is just protecting the outer shell (the blocks)

as for the data inside
the data can be anything. doesnt need to be financial (eg ID, medical records, inventory, even a phonebook/yellowpages)
the data can be locked with hashes, or signatures or timestamps, or any other method.
the data can be stored/checked as anything, hex, json, ascii, xml or anything

again a blockchain is not a big deal alone. but opens up the possibility to what can be done
the blocks and data within blocks can be secured not by requiring storing the whole data on every secure system. but just storing the link between the block securely

eg
"data123data123data123data123"-linkabc-"data456data456data456data456"-linkdef-"data789data789data789data789"-linkghi
you dont need to store all of the line above. you can as an option ontop. have the main 'checking' mechanism just stores
linkabc-linkdef-linkghi
and program it so that the system should reject a block unless its 'header' (link) is recognised.

now again how the banks will use blockchain. is another question that cannot be answered. because blockchain is just a small tools that allows MANY things top be built ontop of it and inside it... that traditionally were not being done

blockchain is not the end solution with built in security. its just a new tool that expands what the old database models limits were. and allows freedom to build layers ontop and new ways of storing/distributing/validating/editing/securing.

think of it as changing from a DBMS to a RDBMS where it opened up new options of use.
blockchain is just the next level up from that. allowing more options of use. but alone is not a big deal

its called the placebo effect wait a year and come back and see the difference

so far segwits features are not active. it requires users to download another version after activation before anything is noticable

the "whitepaper" is 90% rant.. i gave up reading about all the flaws of other systems and then a sudden injection of what this "peerless"  thing meant to do.

i think its more of a brownpaper than a whitepaper. definitely needs a major re-write

most?

4 days: 3.6%
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

dont expect activation by christmas
definitely dont expect anything to change a minute after activation.

you will need to download yet another implementation to actually make a segwit transaction using segwit compatible HD seed keypairs
meaning users, merchants and pools will yet again need to test the implementation and move funds around.

again this topic is not about finding the bitcoincreator.

but finding a random person in a separate game where the person has the same name. the game predates bitcoin by a decade.

this is a game that predates bitcoin.
its a puzzle game more so than finding wally/waldo thing, as it requires cards that link to cryptographic and logic puzzles

for all we know bitcoins inventor liked the game and decided to assume the pseudonym due to that game, knowing after a decade of unsuccessfully "finding satoshi" in the game was futile, even with clues.. the bitcoins inventor could have decided to use that name as a hat tip to anonymity.

no one is saying the guy behind the pre-dated game is the same physical person. but it could elude to how the bitcoins inventor chose his name AFTER playing the game and taking a liking to the name

segwit is the bait to introduce dual-managed transactions (LN) removing peer-to-peer(no middlemen) and replacing it with peer-custodian (hub middlemen)

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html

as for cheap transactions. read the open office spreadsheet linked in the "results" part of the link above
and then click on the "marketing conditions", "prepaid" both suggesting 0.006 btc pre-pay LN fee

if you check the other tabs. it only becomes a cheap fee if you are using it every second. however using it just once a day.. not cheap

to use LN users need to PREPAY 0.006btc which based on a 10day locktime
and it actually costs you more to not be spending. EG dont expect to get 0.0059xxxx back if you only do a couple transactions in those 10 days.

$4+(0.006) 'pre-pay' is a barrier of entry.
would you pay $4 every 10 days just to use a service?? which then charges you for not using it, and only works out beneficial if you are doing lots of transactions a day.

if yes then if you want to do grocery shopping. prepare yourself for scanning one item at the cashiers desk and paying for that item, scanning another and pay, scan another and pay just to get the best deal for the end transaction cost when the 10 days are up.

oh and if you want to close the channel early hoping to avoid paying a time compensation. forget it. there is a penalty for closing the channel early too. also by not signing in a convenient time (measured in seconds) you are penalised aswell.

seems LN have not thought about using code to mitigate risks of DDoS, errors, blackmail. but instead used greed of economics to find the penalty/prize values of avoiding DDoS, errors, blackmail.

LN is more about making the hubs money by users entering into a dual-signed address where the user then has less independent power of their own funds, while costing the user for not using LN efficiently.

dont think LN is going to be the saviour of cheap transactions.. its a bait and switch.. its just about faster method of 'trust' that the funds will be paid, while continuing to push the fee war on to make bitcoin have less utility due to cost of use.

if only these devs can stop playing the economics game of bankers and instead use actual code to mitigate risks, instead of fee's
seems devs think fee's are the answer to security. and forget that code can do the job much better

your concentrating too much on a january 2009 start date.. and not the difficulty curve of the first 3 weeks (of any random date an attacker migh start to then re-write the chain).

i didnt literally mean someone goes physically back in time to january 2009 and start mining. i just used that date as any random date to to show within a year it would not be at block 439,600

pick any start date. where 2.1exa hash mines from a block1 difficulty 1.. within a year it wont be at block 439,600

EG pretend wuille decided to use 2.1exahash in 2013 by 2014 he would not have taken over the mainnet chain. it would take until 2018 to reach whatever block the mainnet was at in 2013 (due to difficulty changes, the first 9 months mining is done in 3 weeks, the rest is stable)
basically 4 years of data is redone in 3 years 3 months (8-9 month difference)

EG pretend wuille decided to use 2.1exahash today by nov 2017 he would not have taken over the mainnet chain. it would take until jan 2025 to reach whatever block the mainnet was at today (due to difficulty changes, the first 9 months mining is done in 3 weeks, the rest is stable)
basically 7 years 1 months of data is redone in 7 years 2 months (8-9 month difference)

all its done is shaved off 9 months of hashing right at the start before then stabilizing to the 2016blocks/fortnight.
the 2.1exa wont make 439,600 blocks in a year. due to difficulty adjustments stabilizing how many blocks are made.

oh and by the way. hashpower is not the measure of which chain wins.
its hashpower that makes blocks faster or slower and its the chain of most blocks that are deciding factor

cause -> action -> reaction -> effect
hash -> blockheight ->longest chain->follow chain
not
hash -> follow chain

after all if went back to lets say 2013 and wave in the air we have 2.1exa and the bitcoin mainnet has only 100thash
suddenly everyone will not follow the 2.1exa simply due to larger hashpower.
as on day 1 the 2.1exa would only be at block 36288
but bitcoin mainnet would be at over 210,000

it requires the attacker to OVERTAKE the BLOCKHEIGHT.

and difficulty adjustments have proven it wont be done in a year.

but hey you'll just ignore the math and just talk about a time travelling sci-fi randomly chosen start date.

we should be thinking about moving the minimum fees down to 100sat/kb. when the fiat valuation rises.

but nah. core wants to push the fee war by introducing 0.0002 fall backs and then average fees etc
rather than letting transactions through and letting pools be instantly reactive to demand and open to decide,

so lets show a scenario where nodes AND pools used the "averaging" instead of reactive

in the future it wont matter what you set in your node. if someone else in the network had their relay fee set to "average" or say 0.00024. this will cause transactions to hop around the network of ethical nodes but then get dropped by the expensive node BEFORE even getting to a pool.

imagine there were 7 hops to reach a Pool from yoUr node, and each node in the relay set a different rate

U->0.00010->0.00012->0.00016->0.00018->0.00020->0.00022->0.00024->P

now imagine you have 1000tx of 0.00011 they get dropped here. and pool never sees it
now imagine you have 1000tx of 0.00019 they get dropped here. and pool never sees it
now imagine you have 1000tx of 0.00023 they get dropped here. and pool never sees it
now imagine you have 1000tx of 0.00024 they get through and pool sees it

whatever node has the highest rate between you and a pool becomes a gatekeeper, keeping cheap transactions from reaching the pool. forcing people to pay more just to be let past the gatekeeper to even be seen by the pool.
enforcing a fee war of a price rise just to be seen even during low demand.

also pools themselves wont just add any tx if demand was low not just because they are not even receiving tx's but also the "average fee" doesnt instantly react. but slowly reacts over a number of blocks. as they are no longer reactive to just add what they please, but now what gets added is based on an "averaging".

now continue imagining the pool only sees transactions over 0.00024(due to average previous demand). and an "average fee" of 3 hours (like 21.co uses) takes upto 18 blocks to bring the average down. meaning pools then makes empty blocks. until the average drops enough to see cheaper transactions

meaning if there were only 4000 sent in one 3 hours segment. where blocks allow 2500tx in per block
where the "average" network fee starts at 0.00024 due to previous demand

now imagine the 4000tx's vary in fee like this:
1000tx of 0.00011
1000tx of 0.00019
1000tx of 0.00023
1000tx of 0.00024

3000 would not even reach the pool straight away due to expensive relayers dropping the tx, treating it as third class citizens

it would look something like this:
block 450,000 - 1000tx (average already at 0.00024) <-the relay network only lets the 1000tx at 0.00024 to reach a pool
block 450,001 - 1000tx (average decreases to 0.00022667) <-the relay network only lets the 1000tx at 0.00023to reach a pool
block 450,002 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00020148) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,003 - 1000tx (average decreases to 0.00018889) <-the relay network only lets the 1000tx at 0.00019 to reach a pool
block 450,004 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00016371) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,005 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00015111) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,006 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00013852) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,007 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00012593) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,008 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00013333) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,009 - 0tx (average decreases to 0.00011334) <-the relay network hasnt let any tx to reach a pool
block 450,010 - 1000tx (average increases to 0.00010074) <-the relay network only lets the 1000tx at 0.00011 to reach a pool

but sticking with the "average" scenario.
ofcourse human emotion would see the 450,002 was empty so the 2000tx that got rejected for the 3rd time. would up their price to get into 450,003
block 450,003 - 2000tx (average decreases to 0.00018889) <-the relay network lets the 2000, >0.00019 tx to reach a pool
and bring the average over 0.00019000

however if pools were instantly reactive to demand. and the relay network was instantly reactive. instead of the stupid concept of averages.
in this low demand scenario all transactions would have been included in 2 blocks..
eg
block 450,000 - 2500tx - includes 1000 at 0.00024, includes 1000 at 0.00023, includes 500 at 0.00019,
block 450,001 - 1500tx - includes 500 at 0.00019, includes 1000 at 0.00011,

not 11 blocks with 7 blocks being empty if just left to wait for averages to drop, or 4 blocks if getting peed off to pay more due to emotional rejection and seeing an empty block

its taken 7 years to get to 2.1exahash network..
imagine that we had 2.1exa hash in 2009.. 2016 blocks would take milliseconds to make instead of 2 weeks. if difficulty was only 1.

but i dont think the article includes that difficulty changes would normalise that massive hash power quite quickly

so now we run into difficulty normalising that 2.1exa.

knowing difficulty can only change a maximum of 4x which would take 20 changes to go from 1 to 281,800,917,193 difficulty

lets work backwards.
20th DA happens at 2 weeks to make 2016 blocks
19th DA happens at 3.5 days to make 2016 blocks
18th DA happens at 21 hours to make 2016 blocks
17th DA happens at 5hours15min to make 2016 blocks
16th DA happens at 1hours18min45secs to make 2016 blocks
15th DA happens at 19min41secs to make 2016 blocks
14th DA happens at 4min55secs to make 2016 blocks
13th DA happens at 1min13secs to make 2016 blocks
12th DA happens at 18secs27ms to make 2016 blocks
11th DA happens at 4secs36ms to make 2016 blocks
10th DA happens at 17ms to make 2016 blocks
09th DA happens at 4.2ms to make 2016 blocks
08th DA happens at 1ms to make 2016 blocks
07th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
06th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
05th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
04th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
03th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
02th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks
01th DA happens at <1ms to make 2016 blocks

now working forward
due to difficulty adjustments happening in milliseconds at first and then slowing down near the 20th adjustment to normalise that 2.1exahash to be around 2016 blocks every 2 weeks
that means that to go from making 2016 in milliseconds to making 2016blocks in 2 weeks
it would take under 3 weeks to normalise and in that time only 40320 blocks are produced before 2.1exa is normalised to make 2016 blocks every 2 weeks

then we would be at the same rate as now but would have done 9 months of hashing initially in under 3 weeks back in january 2009. and the other 7 years would be at the normal 2016blocks every 2 weeks.
30240 blockheight before the 30th minute
32256 blockheight before the 2nd hour
34272 blockheight before the 8th hour
36288 blockheight before the 30th hour
38304 blockheight before the 4th day
40320 blockheight before the 3rd week
then a new 2016 blocks every 2 weeks after that

in short,
for the first 3 weeks of 2009 the network would explode with 40320 blocks before valentines day. then it would be just making 2016 blocks every 2 weeks as normal

meaning a rewrite chain using 2.1exa from day one would only be 40320 blocks ahead of our chain if it started in january 2009

yet another post with people advertising the bankers crapcoin on the hyperledger.

again nothing to do with bitcoin

ARBITRAGE

convert rupee to USD via conventional methods.
but bitcoin with USD, sell it to rupee

profit

convert rupee to USD via conventional methods.
but bitcoin with USD, sell it to rupee

profit

rinse and repeat

yet again your thinking about bitcoins blockchain and how bitcoin functions.

ill repeat for a third time. a block chain is just a block of data linked to another block.
it does not require to be distributed.
does not require PoW,
does not require Sha
does not require the data to be financial based
dos not require immutability and endless growth
does not require these things but still defined as blockchain.

its just a relationship database (if you want to use old terminology)

however its more programmable than traditional databases to allow it to be secured in a multitude of different ways,
it can be where each branch just stores "headers only"
or yes it could be each branch has all account details of all branches
or even regional centres holding a percentage of the data and/or just headers.
its fully open to options and utility.
 
as for how i see banks using it.. some of the ethical concepts(towards society and customers)  i have thought of probably wont be what or how banks will use their hyperledger chains


again your thinking of it in terms of bitcoins immutable ever growing blockchain that due to the amount of customers requires x,y,z. rather then just thinking of a relationship database, where data can be edited/split into clusters.

imagine it like a block of data is a database table, linked by a reference to another database table. and certain nodes only need to store certain tables and table could be altered if there were a number of authorisations to do so. thus preventing a single user from changing everything.

blockchain is not much of a big new perfect technology. its just a tool to then build ontop on with other things.

in short a blockchain is not a big powerful new thing. yes its a new tool for data utility. but a blockchain alone (without other security features) is not much by itself.
the only way you know what extra security layers and what way it will be used would be to talk to those contracted to build it.

blockchain is not the end tech.. its just the introduction.. bitcoin has many other mechanisms that make bitcoin special.

the chance of getting a block is very very low when doing it alone. so it makes sense to join together to increase your chance and take a share of the winnings regularly. rather then do it alone and wait forever for a one time win

bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your birth certificate is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your marriage status is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your family ancestry is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your home address is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your date of birth is not linked to bitcoin.

however if you are going to post your main use bitcoin address in your forum profile
and then tell people on the forum who and where you are.

trying to change bitcoin or complain about bitcoin. when bitcoin asks for nothing. while happily you are giving out info,
is something bitcoin features can never solve. but something you yourself have chose to reveal.

blockchain does have many advantages over standard databases of the olden days. but fundamentally it is just a database. and its what the data will be and how that data is secured that changes things.
think of "blockchain" as simply "relationship database", but much more programmable and layer-able then standard

it all depends on what layers and uses they have

users EG local bank branch and a customer can use multisigs. for the accounts
think of it like each bank branch is a block of data. holding many multisig transactions.
then outside the block(bank branch) the head office signs the entire block and has other bank branches double audit that particular bank branch(block of data)

thus that block is then linked to a chain held by head office.
the bank branch or customer cannot simply edit the block. they need the head office and syndicate of other branches to sign off on the block to then update it. (more of PoA/PoS concept).

meaning the customer alone cant change anything.. the bank branch manager cannot edit anything alone. where it could require between 4-xx of entities to edit an entry.

because blockchain is soo loose in its actual definition. it can be utilised in many ways.. however, the only way of knowing how banks are actually going to use it requires you looking at hyperledger or getting gmaxwell to discuss what he and his employers are upto.

firstly you have not grasped what blockchain is.

its like your trying to skip some steps. grab an idea and then run backwards blindfolded.

bitcoins blockchain is fixed data. due to many SEPARATE mechanisms, one of which is called proof of work that locks the data via hashes.
blockchains in general do not need to be locked in as a permanent unchangeable dataset.
blockchains dont have to uses hashes, PoW. blockchains dont even need to be distributed.

forget all you know of the dozen or so security features of bitcoin.. and peel it all away and think about one aspect. blockchain
forget json, forget SHA, forget PoW, forget transactions, forget distribution with anonymous parties.

blockchain is just a block of data linked to another block of data. like a chain of blocks.

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

if you think a blockchain has to be virtical and has to grow forever it doesnt. a chain can wrap around its self or replace a link in the chain
data can be edited in a blockchain as long as it meets the rules of what linked it together.

bitcoin is a whole different concept. of multiple security features ONTOP of blockchain.. that has many many many more layers to make it near impossible to edit and technically immutable data in regards to the limits of circumventing all of bitcoins other security measures.

again once you realise how small of a security measure blockchains are. you realise it does have some utility.. but is no where near what bitcoin is.

when you realise that "blockchain" is just something like 5% of the security model of what bitcoin is.. you and i can both laugh at what purpose the banks are overselling the "database" 2.0 they are harping on about..

but what data they put within the database. and how they monetise it and how that data has its own utility.. is something only the banks will know.
eg health records, ID, births deaths and marriages, financial, produce and manufacturing tracking data.. the list can be endless. and monetised in endless ways. but that data is nothing to do with blockchain.. blockchain is just a small option for how that data is stored more efficiently then the old way databases worked

blockchain itself is meaningless.. its the data and what that data can and will do that has meaning.. and that data can be anything and unrelated to "blockchain"

research hyperledger.

as to why banks are using it.
here are some reasons

1. instead of one centralised database needing security guards and vetting staff just to be in the building.. the data secures itself and is spread out so no single location can be attacked.
EG bank employee at smalltown branch cant hack the data compared to, if the old style database was distributed.
EG IT guy at centralised HQ where single copy database(not distributed) also cannot hack it.

thus. HR employees that vet staff can be sacked. security guards, IT guys, and many more staff sacked.

2. along with security no longer needing 'labour'. it also no longer needs much maintenance. you just buy a pc load a ISO disk of the operating system that includes the node. and your done. meaning more labour can become redundant

3. due to being distributed it reduces bandwidth compared to 95,000 banks connecting to a centralized server. where each bank branch has 10 employees blasting requests to that central server.. now 10 bank branch employees blast their requests to the bank branch node which then only communicates to another node. which due to relay effect the doesnt require terrabyte fibre connections to a central point
so now servers, internet, electric costs are now reduced, while significantly improving security.

4. auditing becomes easier. so meeting regulation and financial obligation becomes manageable with less labour/equipment.

5. banks actually have "homeland security" staff monitoring threats that can cause issues to the banking system (yea they were useless with 9-11 and the 2008 internal bank terrorism against customers) but now they can be sacked too

6. in short banks can remove their sky scraper HQ buildings and run more efficiently and more securely with just bank branches relaying to each other

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger