I've talked extensively about how 'environmentalists' all around the world are concerned with Bitcoin's energy usage. Nothing has changed. The propaganda against Bitcoin continues. These people are misinformed but refuse to learn how and why they've been deceived. Easier to trick someone than convince them they've been tricked.
Greenpeace has been demanding that Bitcoin change the consensus algorithm to something that doesn't expend as much energy. They use Ethereum as a template as Ethereum has already accomplished this. But as we all know the merge to proof-of-stake has been riddled with systemic risk. Ethereum simply doesn't have a good enough token distribution for the network to be safe anymore on a fundamental level.
They haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about as they allow puppet-masters to whisper in their ear. They don't know anything about Bitcoin. They don't know anything about Ethereum. All they know is that Bitcoin wastes energy and Ethereum doesn't waste energy anymore so Bitcoin should just do the thing that Ethereum did. It's so obvious and simple! Yep! They haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about. Everyone's a critic.
So obviously the Bitcoin community's sarcastic response to organizations like Greenpeace is to tell them to code the change and create a pull request so they can get what they want. Bitcoin will get a revolutionary upgrade and everyone will be happy.
Of course Bitcoin people know that it's 100% impossible for an organization like Greenpeace to accomplish such a thing. At best Greenpeace could create a fork of Bitcoin that was very impressive. It might even be impressive enough to convince say 10% of the core Bitcoin community to leave and support the magic new fork that doesn't "waste energy".
What is not possible is that this new fork would be called "Bitcoin". And even if it was somehow able to steal the brand name away from the original community... the POW chain we know and love today would still exist because users would still support it.
The only way to get rid of Bitcoin isn't to fork it... it's to make the old code obsolete; in addition to convincing the entire standing community that it is indeed obsolete. Again I give this a chance of happening around zero percent. Bitcoin knows it, we know it, and I have the feeling deep down Greenpeace knows it as well. They are barking orders at a stone wall and posturing as if they are doing the world a favor. Politics amirite?
Another way to say this is that the spot-price of Bitcoin is directly correlated to the hash-rate. What really needs to happen for Bitcoin to stop "wasting energy" is for the price to go down. That's the only way to make mining not worth it. Again, something tells me this isn't going to happen. Even if it gets flipped on the market cap it can still have a very high valuation.
Uh yeah the problem is that it's fucking metal and awesome and everyone loves it. Thank you Greenpeace for this absolutely stunning centerpiece. It's got all the things. It's got laser eyes. It's got the Bitcoin logo. It's got circuit boards and messy wires. It's got an energy source. Wow! Talk about your all time ultimate backfires.
Many have been quick to point out that the emissions from nuclear cooling towers are in fact... water vapor. It's not pollution. It is true that these towers are often associated with nuclear waste and disastrous meltdowns, but nobody cares. Everybody loves this thing.
Indeed the same statements are being made that I've been making for years now. Bitcoin's usage of energy is a feature, not a bug. The reason why Bitcoin uses so much energy is because we need it to, not because it's a "waste". Anyone who thinks it's a waste doesn't understand the need for this type of security to exist. It exists for a very good reason but critics do not understand the reason whatsoever. They trust the old system and the authority that tells them otherwise.
There's also the argument to be made that Bitcoin can be used to capture any and all excess energy at the end of the line that isn't being used. This incentivizes renewable energy to be built in places that it could have never existed before. Renewable energy creates a constant output no matter what. If that output doesn't get used it becomes wasted and sent back to ground. Bitcoin can capture all of that energy and be used to fund infrastructure in places that were previously impossible to financially incentivize.
I read a little bit of this post by Nic Carter... and he really does make a compelling case within the context of Operation Chokepoint 2.0.
It wasn’t just banking regulators either. In the last month, regulatory attempts to kneecap the crypto industry in the US escalated dramatically:
- The SEC announced a lawsuit against the crypto infrastructure company Paxos for issuing the BUSD stablecoin.
- Crypto exchange Kraken settled with the SEC for offering a staking product.
- SEC Chair Gensler openly labeled every cryptoasset other than Bitcoin a security.
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing lambasting Bitcoin for its environmental footprint.
- The Biden admin proposed a bill that singles out crypto miners for onerous tax treatment.
- The NY Attorney General declared Ethereum, the second-largest cryptoasset, a security.
- The SEC continued its anti-consumer protection efforts by doubling down on their attempts to block a spot Bitcoin ETF in court as well as trying to stop Binance US from buying the assets of the bankrupt Voyager.
- The OCC let crypto bank Protego’s application for a national trust charter expire without approval.
- The SEC sent Coinbase a Wells Notice, indicating its intent to bring enforcement actions against them for a variety of their business lines.
When you really just list it all out like this it's very hard to come to the conclusion that this is all just random coincidence. The chance that this is a coordinated attack against Bitcoin and crypto as astoundingly high.
Nic Carter goes so far as to say that all three crypto bank shutdowns were fully on purpose and meant to cripple our industry. This tactic seems to have completely backfired and instead created a banking contagion. Funny considering that's exactly what happened on the first operation choke point in which government tried to mettle in the economy without having any idea about the Butterfly Effect that would result from the chaos they created.
But there’s an alternative version of events being pieced together that is far more sinister — and convincing. It appears that these banks, especially Signature, were the victims of an opportunistic campaign to decapitate banks serving the crypto industry. Not only was the bank run opportunistically exploited by regulators to shut down Signature, but it may even trace its origins to Choke Point 2.0. Did the Biden Administration actually instigate the now-global bank run as part of a grievance campaign against the crypto space? If so, this represents a colossal scandal, and one that the Biden administration must be made to answer for.
Could it be that government is ironically making moves that will inevitably lead to their own demise? I suppose that's always been the plan in the long run for those of us who've been around the block enough times.
This is why I chuckle when I hear people talk about "banning Bitcoin". If recent events have taught us anything it's that attacking Bitcoin has extreme unintended consequences. In this case perhaps an entire legacy banking contagion occurred simply because the government was meddling in things that are well beyond their understanding.
It's like Biden trying to perform open-heart surgery on the economy... it's not going to end well for the patient, but luckily Bitcoin itself is an extremely antifragile piece of the economy. Even in the case of it being directly attacked, it stands taller than the contagion that spreads around it. An impressive feat to be sure.
And the narrative is falling apart. In order to get laws passed the population must consent to those laws. Obviously this is not a rule, but a guideline that politicians have learned the hard way over the course of history. If they try to force a square peg into a round hole the effectiveness of the executive branch has heinous diminishing returns.
Rather, politics is a game of convincing the public to agree to and in fact help enforce the very laws that stifle freedom and extract wealth from the lower classes. Why do you think the COVID narrative was so strong?
It fucking worked because people bought that shit and they were scared. The narrative has to make sense to people, and for COVID the narrative made a lot of sense to a lot of people; that's why it worked. If Bitcoin is the last man standing during a banking contagion that specifically targeted crypto then the propaganda stops making sense real quick.
Sure, the whole "Bitcoin wastes energy" narrative is still going strong, but how does one leverage that narrative into banning self-custodianship? Short answer is that this doesn't translate or make any sense whatsoever. They need a new narrative, but they are struggling to find one. The banking contagion is the counterattack that makes it even harder to come up with a "good reason" for why we should ban crypto. It's not like they can openly say, "We're banning it because it takes away our corrupted power and we don't like that." See what happens if they try.
Divide and conquer strategy against decentralized systems is unsurprisingly not working very well.
The Bitcoin skull is perhaps the most epic example of propaganda blowing up in the faces of the perpetrators. This thing is awesome, and it's going to be broadcasted everywhere by the Bitcoin community itself. Such a nice gift from Greenpeace, that.
The banking contagion itself looks like it may have been caused from a direct attack against crypto from the shadows, and that has backfired magnificently as well. These people may be on their last legs. Does that make them weak... or dangerous? Perhaps both. A wounded cornered animal will lash out with ferocity. Don't turn your back on one.
