The Bitcoin Group #134 – May Scaling Meeting – BATS Objects – Bitcoin Unity – China vs. Exchanges

Earn 10-30% pm Safely Trading Forex On Autopilot

Largest drawdown during 19 years back testing and 2 years live testing is 33%

£15 monthly payment is the only up front out of pocket expense

20% of profits paid at the beginning of every month


Not tied in for any length of time

£1000 minimum deposit in your own ICMarkets broker account

Paypal account is required

Click here to go to facebook group

Account Doubled in 14 weeks



Donate: 18EQEiQBK1X2DyDL5Y18j78iw4NuNHoLej


Tone Vays ( )
Blake Anderson ( )
Gabriel D Vine ( )
Jeffrey Jones ( )
Theo Goodman ( )
and Thomas Hunt ( )


A Major Bitcoin Scaling Meeting Could Take Place This May

Bats submits formal objection to rejection of Winklevoss’s bitcoin ETF

Scaling Bitcoin with MadBitcoins

Why Bitcoin Will Get Scaling Without Segwit or Large Blocks

The Power of the Invisible Hand

The China Syndrome – are California’s Bitcoin Exchanges Doomed?

Please Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

Would you like to support The Bitcoin Group? Donate Bitcoins to:

bookmark our slightly empty homepage:

Check us out on Twitter:

or on Google+:


30 thoughts on “The Bitcoin Group #134 – May Scaling Meeting – BATS Objects – Bitcoin Unity – China vs. Exchanges

  1. Could somebody tell me the technical reasons why bitcoin core is so against increasing the block size at the moment? As a not so technical investor in crypto-currencies I understand the reason for making sure the fees and the processing time stay low by increasing the block size ,but I don’t understand too well the reasons why we shouldn’t increase the block size… I’m sure there is a really good reason not to but I just can’t grasp my head around it..

    1. Chris Vl Ive tried to figure it out myself and there is no technical reason against raising blocksize. When you look at Core advocates they are deaf to reason which makes me suspicious there is another agenda at play.
      Here is one scenario that is never discussed. Jews run the Federal Reserve and all central banks. Jews also act as a group. So it makes sense Jews want to sabotage Bitcoin which threatens their power. I cant wait to be called anti semitic. So are Jews pro Core or pro BU? I have yet to come across one Jew that supports BU.

    2. Raising blocksize reduces nodes because its more costly and harms small miners, making the network more centralized. The devs also have no safe way to do it and no consensus on what the blocksize should be. If they can scale without it (e.g. segwit, schnirr sig aggregation, lightning network) then its alot safer.

      Remember, upgrading the btc network is like upgrading a plane midflight. Just making the plane bigger is harder than it sounds.

    3. The Core is not against increasing the block size at the moment; they just want to do it through SegWit, rather than the BU way.
      The size of the transaction block can be increased 6 months after that or whenever also.

      So, your question is just as valid stated “Could somebody tell me the technical reasons why Bitcoin Unlimited is so against increasing the block capacity through SegWit at the moment, and physical block increase later when necessary?”

      The hand-waving and FUDding to answer the latter, is even harder to figure out though, and isn’t only technical…

    4. Chris Vl i think we can use Roger’s “man in the desert” anology a different way. segwit and BU is like 10 mens trying to cross the desert, and each of them have only a small backpack.

      They are starting with 2 glass bottles that are half filled in their backpack. At the departure zone they wondered if they could make it to the next pitstop.

      The merchant(Core) being smart suggested they could arrange their bags and fill up so they have 2 full bottles of water(segwit). When they reach the pitstop, the mens could grab a camel (2nd layer scaling).

      Despite this advice, some of the mens stood up and said no, we dun know if there will be any camel ahead. We are going to get bigger backpacks from the bag merchant so we can pack more half-filled bottles that way. . .

      Sure enough, the mens with their heavier backpack from the extra water and bottles left. Over the journey, the weaker mens starts to tired out and drop out(centralization) and only a few stronger mens managed to reach the pitstop.

      One of the surviving man said, there r camels here, should we…? No!!! The camels are going to drink our share of water, lets get bigger bags and move on….

      some smaller group started from the original departure point with camels and extra large water tanks

  2. Y’all gotta hammer to the herds the fact that the full validation nodes determine which blocks are valid, AND most validation nodes are not miners.

    The miners are way overrated in their power. Luke D, and them layed down the gospel about that on y’all a long time ago, and since.

  3. @23:35 ~ 37:35 Gabe’s monologue on the decentralists vs. the centralists as pertains to BTC philosophy really hit it outta the park here & rang true on the incentives/motivations for both sides. This was a fantastic pontification on the conflicts of interest on the scaling issue. It really is becoming quite political in nature & when the Dunbar# is surpassed by orders of magnitude in any collection of humans, human conflicts of interest are directly proportional.

  4. Congrats on meeting your goal of the Zelda purchase Thomas! Your aligned incentives on reaching your goal granted you this gift through your hard work & promotional skills to accomplish the stated objective.

  5. on the communism topic, it is not that simple Tone. My home country is ex communist and still the preffered choice are the socialist parties and pro-russia. our president is ex communist.

  6. BWAHAHAHAHA how is it even possible that when Satoshi Nakomoto the designer is NOT even saying or had any constructive feedback on this Fork and Scaling…that the Corporate world are politicizing and going for Control of this platform. Greed.

Leave a Reply