The Bitcoin Group #145 – UASF, Putin, Ethereum, Singapore and the Bitcoin Bubble

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 ( )
Jimmy Song ( )
and Thomas Hunt ( )


Bitcoin's 'Independence Day': Could Users Tip the Scales in the Scaling Debate?

AMD shares are surging with bitcoin because digital currency 'miners' need its graphics cards

Suddenly Vladimir Putin Meets Vitalik Buterin, Endorses Ethereum

Singapore Trials its Digital Dollar via an Ethereum Blockchain

Is bitcoin in a bubble? This metric suggests there’s more room to grow

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+:


41 thoughts on “The Bitcoin Group #145 – UASF, Putin, Ethereum, Singapore and the Bitcoin Bubble

  1. what about a flag day in July for all miners ready to mine 1 block on 148 just to prove hashing power. Turn off after 1 block to save difficultly.

  2. Question for Jimmy, what is ItBit plan for UASF or BIP 148 or BIP 149? Any chance of them coming out to support one of the Segwit adoption plans ahead of time or is it just wait and see? I really think exchanges, even one prominent exchange supporting UASF could get us to 75%. Either way thanks for all the info you have shared on UASF it’s been very educational.

    1. Agree, without a super majority, (probably at least 75%) of hash-power on the UASF chain, the risks are too great to support UASF. I would have liked to see a serious discussion of a scenario where Ethereum or other bad actors attempt to influence the outcome. ( Through either attacking the UASF chain, or supporting the legacy chain to promote a split).

      Furthermore when this whole effort fails we are giving more power to bitmain and Ver, as they can use the failure of UASF as evidence that Segwit did not have enough support.

  3. “there’s lots of reasons miners what 2mb blocks” – Jimmy Song. Seriously funny. He bends over so far to not acknowledge miners are bad actors here. Even when confronted with evidence. So crazy.

    1. I don’t buy the ASICboost bad actor argument because SegWit eliminates the ASICboost advantage and miners have agreed in the past to adopt SegWit if Bitcoin Core granted them at least 2 MB blocks.

      It also doesn’t make sense because the same miners adopted SegWit in Litecoin because Charlie Lee promised to give them 2 MB blocks should the Litecoin blocks reach 50% capacity.

      So, given the Litecoin precedent and considering Litecoin is almost identical to Bitcoin with a few parameter tweaks, if actually granted at least an increase to 2 MB blocks, I’d expect the miners would accept SegWit.

    2. Core isn’t a person, or a hierarchy able “grant” wishes. Certain members have built a reputation for excellence and have earned respect, that’s true, but they’ve built that rep through being smarter than me or you, and extremely principled to boot. Miners can’t tell them to put aside their superior intellect and ethics to shill a HF.

      AB aside, Bitmain has been malicious to users by lying about their intentions to activate HFs, actively promoting discord, stalling cutting-edge development, sodomizing the network with high fees, and they have some responsibility for the coming altcoin crash that will ruin a lot of people while enriching insiders. They are bad actors without even talking about AB.

    3. So let’s say that Bitmain somehow managed to get Bitcoin Core to release 2 MB blocks, do you trust Bitmain to signal SegWit or would Jihan Wu find some other excuse to block SegWit?

      Do you think that all Bitcoin Core members are highly principled and have no special interests guiding their decisions?

    4. I do not trust bitmain to signal segwit unless they have no other choice. Jihan is very powerful, even without AB, he doesn’t want to lose that power, so he tries to insert himself in development where he’s not qualified. Same with Ver.

      Yes, I think everyone has their own special interests, Core devs are no exception, but it doesn’t matter. No one person or group has unilateral power. It doesn’t affect the outcome in bitcoin development. Good ideas will be worked on, to the point where devs stop contributing to Core and work on the other project. This happens all the time, like MimbleWimble, sidechains and Lightning demonstrate. There’s not some conspiracy to hold back good ideas because of politics. If what was produced wasn’t the best option, other options would be more demanded. There’s an incentive to produce the best possible solution, regardless of anyone’s individual special interests.

      Core has a very open development process with IRC, the mailing list and github. Ideas dropped there are discussed, but if they don’t pass initial mustard by someone, anyone of the 1000s of devs there, they are probably not as good or interesting as what is being worked on.

  4. Wait wait Jimmy, you say you want to avoid a chain split, and the only reason you can come up with for a HF is an existential threat!? What? No one at all wants a 2mb HF.

    1. Ansel Lindner 10% Premium discount code for genesis cloud  mining : S7jL5f . Use it while the secret code lasts, hurry! Only trusted eth/btc/monero cloud mining site.

    2. Genesis Mining, you are going to be so busy in August. If the segwit BIP148 chain dose not buy up all the mining contracts, Bitcoin Unlimited will.

  5. Putin suggesting support for Ethereum is a power play. Bitcoin development is dominated by America. Ethereum development is concentrated in Europe, the leader is of Russian decent, and a competitor to Bitcoin.

  6. Jimmy Song only supports UASF with 75% of hashpower. What a joke. There is a mining cartel that has well over 25% of hashpower so he supports allowing them to block any changes under all circumstances. He should debate Ansel Lindner on this.

    1. Given that Bitmain intends to attempt to HF Bitcoin if the UASF is “successful”, do either of you think that the UASF is still a wise idea? Are there any other less contentious options of which Bitmain and other miners might approve? What’s the point of SegWit or bust?

    2. UASF is the trading highlight of the year. We are gonna fork these sons of bitches regardless! I’m not interested in what bitmain try to do! The only thing that matters is getting segwit, bring on the war

    3. Bitcoin is trying to sort it’s scaling problem with segwit. Ethereum is about to have a scaling problem and needs to fork to PoS and dump all the miners in order to scale. Litecoin is fast, has next to zero transaction fees and has also solved the scaling issue and has a clear path to the MOON, hopefully it will be joined by Bitcoin very soon once Bitcoin is clear for takeoff. Good luck Derek Mahar, looks like you are keeping your assets in the best places. If Ethereum wobbles before Bitcoin sorts its self out litecoin charts will go vertical.

    4. Paula Green, I appreciate what Bitcoin users are trying to achieve with BIP 148 and the UASF, but I think Bitcoin is risky enough without having to worry about blockchain wars. I want to participate in the cryptocurrency economy, but I’m not interested in risking my savings in order to achieve a short term goal which may eventually be achieved through some other peaceful means. Given the uncertainty surrounding bitcoin in the near term, Litecoin strikes me as the next best option given that it is stable, conservative, and economically and technically sound. I’d prefer not to exchange my coins for Litecoin or fiat before August 1, but I suspect this may be my safest option.

  7. Jimmy Song. Thanks that one person on this panel (you) are not running with blinders on. The others must be brainwashed. Before they sounded mostly sane. SEGWIT AND BIP148 has made them blind. The small concession of SEGWIT PLUS 2MB could solve the deadlock (shortterm).

  8. Reason for 2MB. 2MB would solve the unconfirmed transactions queue quickly (fees and confirmation times). Segwit would not. On a longer timescale it may, but first all unconfirmed and old transactions be processed and they are not more efficient even with segwit.

    1. Roger Ver . Hello Roger my friend. You don’t sound like yourself today 🙂 Hope you feel better tomorrow. /s (To explain : Fake “Roger” account.)

    1. Gabe needs to go much further.
      When he says that there is too much at stake for the miners, I say there is *nothing* at stake for the miners. The miners were bought out by bigger bad actors months / years ago and the previous owner / CEO is sipping cocktails in Malibu with a pension for life while the bad guys are tweeting through his account.
      No need for conspiracy theories, here. Bitcoin is facing the biggest adversary this planet can offer … Money.

Leave a Reply