Topic: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument. - page 12. (Read 5223 times)
The impact of bitcoin on the environment is minimal, and hardly anyone can convince me otherwise.
Since only the mining farms know how much of the time they keep their ASICs on or how long they will use them for, we currently can't really estimate their total energy usage for sure other than for the inefficient (and probably nonsensical) worst case of leaving them always on, and it's still unlikely this'll be possible if what I call "green" ASICs are ever deployed, but the energy decline should be noticeable in say 10 years when most of the old miners are phased out.
OK, let's try a different approach.
The s9 does 14Th/s at 1400W. Fast forward a year after its deployment you could have all the hashrate in the world assuming only the most efficient gear powered by 500k of those.
The 19pro does 110Th/s at 3250W, 3 times more efficient, assuming most efficient gear could only be achieved by 1.3 million of those, so that's 6 times the power consumption with 3 times more efficient gear.
The efficiency didn't do #$% about consumption, the halving will take care of that far more efficient than anything bitmain could ever build.
As long as the price goes up and so does the reward and you should not expect anything other than higher and higher consumption, this is not traditional mining where you make better and bigger trucks to pull more coal out of the earth more efficiently, this is a competition where as long as you get more $ than what you pay for a kwh spent you plug more and more and more.
Now think a moment from the point of view of a miner, if with the old gear you made 10 cents per 5 cents spent on electricity and with the new gear you make 20 cents for every 3 cents spent, you would simply say I have enough and not buy more gear?
Common.....
If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
That's now how mining works.
You can look back at the advance in hashing power per watt and you will see that despite constant progress the actually energy consumption has still grown.
A more efficient s21, for example, will simply make people buy 11 of those instead of 10 as for the same amount of power you can get a bigger slice from the reward.
Bitmain could launch a miner that makes 1Petahash for 2kW, the consumption will not go down once they roll out all those miners, it's just that the hashrate will explode and that's all.
What can make the consumption drop is a price decrease, and although I pray it doesn't happen we might test it by the end of the period, below 40k any s9 generation miner running with more than 10cents/kwh is useless, the s11 will follow up at under $35k.
Bitmain and co. can only manufacture a limited supply of miners and I expect that their manufacturing throughput of hypothetical energy-efficient miners would remain the same or close to it.
So it doesn't really matter if one mining ops buys more of those miners than the old ones, because they're buying at the expense of other buyers. Global usage of ASICs stays about the same, assuming that the manufacturers keep selling out as they frequently do.
Miners always attempts to maximize their profits and introducing a more efficient ASIC would result in the sustained electrical consumption for that difficulty epoch (and steady increasing as the newer ASICs are deployed). ASICs are usually never retired until the revenue = cost, among other factors but a more efficient ASIC would likely not result in any significant decrease in energy usage.
Since only the mining farms know how much of the time they keep their ASICs on or how long they will use them for, we currently can't really estimate their total energy usage for sure other than for the inefficient (and probably nonsensical) worst case of leaving them always on, and it's still unlikely this'll be possible if what I call "green" ASICs are ever deployed, but the energy decline should be noticeable in say 10 years when most of the old miners are phased out.
It dumbfolds me why the entire media (and alarmingly some people here) are so focused on changing Bitcoin's algorithm when the real problem is reducing the power consumption of mining hardware and mining farms.
If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
Or an increase.If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
Miners always attempts to maximize their profits and introducing a more efficient ASIC would result in the sustained electrical consumption for that difficulty epoch (and steady increasing as the newer ASICs are deployed). ASICs are usually never retired until the revenue = cost, among other factors but a more efficient ASIC would likely not result in any significant decrease in energy usage.
If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
That's now how mining works.
You can look back at the advance in hashing power per watt and you will see that despite constant progress the actually energy consumption has still grown.
A more efficient s21, for example, will simply make people buy 11 of those instead of 10 as for the same amount of power you can get a bigger slice from the reward.
Bitmain could launch a miner that makes 1Petahash for 2kW, the consumption will not go down once they roll out all those miners, it's just that the hashrate will explode and that's all.
What can make the consumption drop is a price decrease, and although I pray it doesn't happen we might test it by the end of the period, below 40k any s9 generation miner running with more than 10cents/kwh is useless, the s11 will follow up at under $35k.
These are only two examples, but many others are there: China-coal powered bitcoin mining is only an accident in time. The competition will drive miners toward more economic sources of energy.
Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1
(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.
The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.
Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION
This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.
These are great news! Not only there's an ever-growing industry ready to mine bitcoin taking into account low-carbon sources but also considering, eventually, to sell carbon emissions too. Dear Elon, are you regretting being a bit gullible on the bitcoin environmental disaster? Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1
Quote
(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.
The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.
Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION
Quote
Cryptocurrency mining firm Argo Blockchain has continued its move toward environmentally-friendly bitcoin mining by purchasing two hydroelectric-powered data centers in Quebec, Canada, according to a press release on the London Stock Exchange, on which Argo is listed.
This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.
The whole thing is ridiculous. People want to scapegoat Bitcoin but there isn't one individual thing that will destroy the planet. It is a collection of various things. Disposable face masks are also bad for the environment because they end up in the ocean, in landfills, and throughout the environment where they kill all kinds of animals. Do these twitter environmentalists think people should just not wear masks and make the pandemic worse? Plastic is probably the single worst thing for the environment and none of these people are doing anything to reduce their dependence on this. We can always transition to renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions but it is going to be much harder to replace plastic.
We can do this 'what about' game with just about anything but with Bitcoin you can find many more ways in which it will benefit society. You really can't make those same arguments for Christmas lights or for watching Logan Paul videos on YouTube.
We can do this 'what about' game with just about anything but with Bitcoin you can find many more ways in which it will benefit society. You really can't make those same arguments for Christmas lights or for watching Logan Paul videos on YouTube.
Recently I often heard bitcoin critics telling me that "Bitcoin is too polluting", "Bitcoin waste too much energy" or other similar arguments.
Those arguments are as as as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those have been debunked a few several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.
I'm only going to address the first point, because you get into some quite convoluted arguments and make trivial defensive statements. First off, I doubt Satoshi envisaged bitcoin becoming anywhere near as popular as it has become the 11 years ago when he posted that statement. Anyone clever enough to produce the code behind Bitcoin would be clever enough to revise their original arguments when presented with new information - being that the network is vastly larger than back then.Those arguments are as as as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those have been debunked a few several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.
- Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly, compared to mining other Store of Value (Gold)
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/a-comparison-of-bitcoins-environmental-impact-with-that-of-gold-and-banking-2021-05-04
If you refer to an article posted by the NASDAQ exchange this month, then Bitcoin uses twice the amount of energy per year than all gold extraction taking place and payment networks like VISA/Mastercard use 20% of the energy consumed by Bitcoin. They use the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index to determine that Bitcoin is using 113 TWh, more than the whole of Argentina. I think the real question that needs to be asked, is whether the environment cost of this new technology is worth the freedom it gives you from the traditional banking system? I'm not sure it is, and many governments might start using that argument as justification to attempt restrictions.
These are only two examples, but many others are there: China-coal powered bitcoin mining is only an accident in time. The competition will drive miners toward more economic sources of energy.
Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1
(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.
The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.
Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION
This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.
Greenidge says N.Y. bitcoin mining operation to be carbon-neutral by June 1
Quote
(Reuters) – Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc said on Friday it will operate an entirely carbon-neutral bitcoin mining operation at its upstate New York facility starting on June 1.
The company said it will purchase voluntary carbon offsets from a portfolio of U.S. greenhouse gas reduction projects. The company converted its power generation operations from coal to natural gas in 2017.
Cap and Trade are a widely available mechanism to allow polluting industries to offset their emissions and incentivising them to lower the total amount of emission.
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN BUYS HYDRO DATA CENTERS TO REALIZE GREEN BITCOIN MINING VISION
Quote
Cryptocurrency mining firm Argo Blockchain has continued its move toward environmentally-friendly bitcoin mining by purchasing two hydroelectric-powered data centers in Quebec, Canada, according to a press release on the London Stock Exchange, on which Argo is listed.
This mining operation could very well be on the opposite side of the trade. Being powered by renewable energy, their emission would be lower than the allowed level, giving them the eventual possibility to sell their carbon emissions.
Yes, you are right, because then the rich will become even richer. But still, there are far fewer positive aspects of PoS than negative ones (for example, the fact that staking requires storing coins in a hot wallet). Although PoW also has disadvantages, given the existing monopolies on the production of ASICs and chips ... but one way or another, the main thing is that the energy expended is a real resource.
As for the allegedly high consumption of electricity, I am not worried about such speculative statements, at least because no one has reliable data on how much and what type of electricity is spent on Bitcoin mining, (in the sense that the calculation of energy consumption is a theoretical figure based only on the complexity of the network). No one takes into account that the lion's share of energy costs, depending on the time of the year, are renewable energy sources. I do not know the exact numbers to assert, but it seems to me that most of the hashrate is in China also for the reason that BTC takes on excess energy that cannot be sold.
As for the allegedly high consumption of electricity, I am not worried about such speculative statements, at least because no one has reliable data on how much and what type of electricity is spent on Bitcoin mining, (in the sense that the calculation of energy consumption is a theoretical figure based only on the complexity of the network). No one takes into account that the lion's share of energy costs, depending on the time of the year, are renewable energy sources. I do not know the exact numbers to assert, but it seems to me that most of the hashrate is in China also for the reason that BTC takes on excess energy that cannot be sold.
Different Energy Efficient Algorithms have been designed and available since 2013,
but bitcoiners don't want to give up their tried and true PoW.
That fine, until it's not fine , and that day is approaching faster than any of us know.
but bitcoiners don't want to give up their tried and true PoW.
That fine, until it's not fine , and that day is approaching faster than any of us know.
It dumbfolds me why the entire media (and alarmingly some people here) are so focused on changing Bitcoin's algorithm when the real problem is reducing the power consumption of mining hardware and mining farms.
If somehow Bitmain manage to make the Antminer S19 pull 10% less watts power, suddenly we are looking at a massive decrease in energy usage.
And it would be good for the mining operators too, because they'd pay less for electricity!
But no, "PoW is bad" and the dev community should get a deadline to hardfork to PoS. Do people even realize that the largest bitcoin wallets (that will ultimately influence PoS distribution) are either dormant or belong to corporations or the FBI?
Amazing thread fillippone, thank you very much for having collected the most comprehensive articles selection currently available to destroy the utter shitty arguments against bitcoin and its so-called energy problem.
I see no problem, anyway
I see no problem, anyway
Today is a great day, after Pantera Capital's article this one from Galaxy Digital:
Quote
On Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption: A Quantitative Approach to a Subjective Question
Is the Bitcoin network’s electricity consumption an acceptable use of energy? This question has been debated since the early days of the network. Yet despite the numerous published articles and analyses, the debate rages on, typically re-emerging during Bitcoin bull runs.
Bitcoin is a fundamentally novel technology that is not a precise substitute for any one legacy system. Bitcoin is not solely a settlement layer, not solely a store of value, and not solely a medium of exchange. There is no denying that the Bitcoin network consumes a substantial amount of energy, but this energy consumption is what makes it so robust and secure.
Given Bitcoin’s transparency, it is easy to estimate Bitcoin’s energy usage. This results in frequent criticism of Bitcoin, but these critiques are rarely levied against other traditional industries. Bitcoin is most often compared to the traditional banking system (for payments, savings, and settlement) and gold (as a non-sovereign store of value). But the energy usage of these industries is opaque as they do not publicly disclose their energy footprints. If we want to have an honest conversation about Bitcoin’s energy use, it seems appropriate to consider it in light of the industries it is most often compared to.
In this article, we begin by trying to understand the relevant facts around Bitcoin’s energy footprint, and then compare it to the gold and banking industries. Though these comparisons provide interesting context, they are inherently imperfect.
Although the magnitude of different industries’ energy usage can be estimated and compared, the question is still fundamentally subjective. Views on the Bitcoin network’s importance vary, but Bitcoin’s properties do not. Anyone can use Bitcoin. Anyone can hold bitcoins for themselves. And Bitcoin transactions can provide probabilistically final settlement in an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
These features can offer financial freedom to people around the world who may not have the luxury of a stable and accessible financial infrastructure. The network can benefit the energy sector by creating perfect use cases for intermittent and excess energy. And the network will only scale further if network adoption warrants it.
Throughout this piece, we reference several in-depth calculations. The methodology and calculations can be found here.
Is the Bitcoin network’s electricity consumption an acceptable use of energy? This question has been debated since the early days of the network. Yet despite the numerous published articles and analyses, the debate rages on, typically re-emerging during Bitcoin bull runs.
Bitcoin is a fundamentally novel technology that is not a precise substitute for any one legacy system. Bitcoin is not solely a settlement layer, not solely a store of value, and not solely a medium of exchange. There is no denying that the Bitcoin network consumes a substantial amount of energy, but this energy consumption is what makes it so robust and secure.
Given Bitcoin’s transparency, it is easy to estimate Bitcoin’s energy usage. This results in frequent criticism of Bitcoin, but these critiques are rarely levied against other traditional industries. Bitcoin is most often compared to the traditional banking system (for payments, savings, and settlement) and gold (as a non-sovereign store of value). But the energy usage of these industries is opaque as they do not publicly disclose their energy footprints. If we want to have an honest conversation about Bitcoin’s energy use, it seems appropriate to consider it in light of the industries it is most often compared to.
In this article, we begin by trying to understand the relevant facts around Bitcoin’s energy footprint, and then compare it to the gold and banking industries. Though these comparisons provide interesting context, they are inherently imperfect.
Although the magnitude of different industries’ energy usage can be estimated and compared, the question is still fundamentally subjective. Views on the Bitcoin network’s importance vary, but Bitcoin’s properties do not. Anyone can use Bitcoin. Anyone can hold bitcoins for themselves. And Bitcoin transactions can provide probabilistically final settlement in an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
These features can offer financial freedom to people around the world who may not have the luxury of a stable and accessible financial infrastructure. The network can benefit the energy sector by creating perfect use cases for intermittent and excess energy. And the network will only scale further if network adoption warrants it.
Throughout this piece, we reference several in-depth calculations. The methodology and calculations can be found here.
Anyways, back on the thread, would it be possible to add something about ewaste in the topic, I find it so heavily centered on electrical usage that any other environmental impact isn't really mentioned.
This is something I have been researching for, but I didn't fin any article "good enough" for this.
Please let me know if you can find a good one, or for sure I will ring your bell when I find one.
Please someone forward this thread to Elon Musk.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
If you really think Elon Musk actually didn't consider about the possible environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining, then I would strongly urge you to reconsider again. Bitcoin mining is energy intensive (no one can dispute that), if he doesn't find any point in accepting Bitcoin payment and chooses to disassociates himself with it while simultaneously advocating for Bitcoin to shift to a less energy intensive algorithm, then there is nothing much you can do.First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
Don't bother talking to/about someone who says his own company is overvalued. Anyways, back on the thread, would it be possible to add something about ewaste in the topic, I find it so heavily centered on electrical usage that any other environmental impact isn't really mentioned.
Another great article debunking Camilo Mora article, written by Paul Veradittakit from Pantera Capital.
Bitcoin Energy Consumption
For once, I will report here the conclusion of the study:
Being a climate-conscious Bitcoin owner.
As retail and institutional investors increasingly incorporate Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) considerations into their investment theses, I’ve had multiple people ask me about the moral consequences of buying Bitcoin. My personal perspective on Bitcoin’s energy consumption, to summarize the preceding sections, is as follows:
Even if you disagree, one way to dodge the energy consumption debate entirely is just to purchase carbon offsets; that way, you can ensure your purchase of Bitcoin is carbon-neutral (or even negative). As we’ve seen, calculating a precise amount of carbon emitted from your personal engagement with Bitcoin is difficult—it’s not as simple as dividing hashpower by the number of transactions—but some good faith contribution (e.g., 10% of the value of your BTC holdings) can go a long way. Ninepoint, a Canada-based Bitcoin ETF, announced this month that they were purchasing offsets for their holdings. If you’re interested, I’d suggest using Nori, but there are other simple ways to purchase small carbon offsets.
On a final note, I hope to shift the discussion slightly. Instead of judging the uses of energy, which is a strict and selectively-applied standard, let’s focus on making energy production as clean as possible. Purchase offsets. Support renewable energy projects. Vote for a carbon tax. The list goes on. But don’t make Bitcoin the enemy: it only distracts us from completing the difficult work of creating a sustainable future.
Bitcoin Energy Consumption
For once, I will report here the conclusion of the study:
Quote
Being a climate-conscious Bitcoin owner.
As retail and institutional investors increasingly incorporate Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) considerations into their investment theses, I’ve had multiple people ask me about the moral consequences of buying Bitcoin. My personal perspective on Bitcoin’s energy consumption, to summarize the preceding sections, is as follows:
- It is undeniable that Bitcoin consumes a large amount of energy, which, in the short-term, will add some carbon to the atmosphere. However, it will leave far smaller of a footprint than most estimates assume.
- Energy is not “wasted,” it is used to power the most secure blockchain on Earth, allowing for second- and third-layer innovations that expand financial access for billions of people. This is enough of a social good, in my opinion, to justify an expenditure of energy.
- The debate around energy quantity is not particularly useful; instead, we should focus on energy types. Bitcoin already uses large amounts of renewable energy and, as the “energy buyer of last resort,” could help propel us to a carbon-neutral future.
Even if you disagree, one way to dodge the energy consumption debate entirely is just to purchase carbon offsets; that way, you can ensure your purchase of Bitcoin is carbon-neutral (or even negative). As we’ve seen, calculating a precise amount of carbon emitted from your personal engagement with Bitcoin is difficult—it’s not as simple as dividing hashpower by the number of transactions—but some good faith contribution (e.g., 10% of the value of your BTC holdings) can go a long way. Ninepoint, a Canada-based Bitcoin ETF, announced this month that they were purchasing offsets for their holdings. If you’re interested, I’d suggest using Nori, but there are other simple ways to purchase small carbon offsets.
On a final note, I hope to shift the discussion slightly. Instead of judging the uses of energy, which is a strict and selectively-applied standard, let’s focus on making energy production as clean as possible. Purchase offsets. Support renewable energy projects. Vote for a carbon tax. The list goes on. But don’t make Bitcoin the enemy: it only distracts us from completing the difficult work of creating a sustainable future.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
I'm not at all surprised ... I'm pretty sure that the board of directors showed Elon where he belongs, pointing out how easy it is to remove him from the post of general director. Perhaps some of the Gray Cardinals are receiving first-hand news, and knowing that Musk is facing a lawsuit based on spring manipulations, it was decided to distance himself from everything related to cryptocurrency (in order to preserve the status quo). Perhaps there is another reason, but in any case, I am convinced that Musk's statement is just an excuse, (the most interesting thing is that he posted this tweet ahead of the rainy season in China). If that was the case, then he would have explicitly stated that Tesla will refuse to accept anymore cryptocurrency payments. But his latest tweet was only directed at Bitcoin. And furthermore, it claimed that they are looking for a cryptocurrency which has a lower carbon footprint when compared to Bitcoin. If your argument was true, then there is no point in Elon tweeting about the alternative cryptocurrency. For me, it is very clear. He either wants to create his own cryptocurrency, or want to pump some crypto such as Dogecoin.
I came back here in this thread because of Elon Musk ditching bitcoin as a payment method for Tesla. First of all, this thread should be pinned or must be seen since most of us here support bitcoin, and that's why we are here. The information that can be seen here is very important, comparing BTC to other things that have a massive consumption and being wasted.
https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1391747174950752260
I watched Michael Saylor's interview and he debunked this energy misconception in under a minute. Since the op is tl;dr, anyone who doesn't understand what those numbers mean should watch the video.
Elon Musk didn't DYOR. lmao
and here's a report of coinshares about BTC using renewable energy. https://coinshares.com/research/bitcoin-mining-network-june-2019
https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1391747174950752260
I watched Michael Saylor's interview and he debunked this energy misconception in under a minute. Since the op is tl;dr, anyone who doesn't understand what those numbers mean should watch the video.
In case you have been living under a rock:
!~
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392602041025843203?s=21
Please someone forward this thread to Elon Musk.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
https://twitter.com/MMCrypto/status/1392869357731069956!~
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392602041025843203?s=21
Please someone forward this thread to Elon Musk.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
Elon Musk didn't DYOR. lmao
and here's a report of coinshares about BTC using renewable energy. https://coinshares.com/research/bitcoin-mining-network-june-2019
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
I'm not at all surprised ... I'm pretty sure that the board of directors showed Elon where he belongs, pointing out how easy it is to remove him from the post of general director. Perhaps some of the Gray Cardinals are receiving first-hand news, and knowing that Musk is facing a lawsuit based on spring manipulations, it was decided to distance himself from everything related to cryptocurrency (in order to preserve the status quo). Perhaps there is another reason, but in any case, I am convinced that Musk's statement is just an excuse, (the most interesting thing is that he posted this tweet ahead of the rainy season in China).
In case you have been living under a rock:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392602041025843203?s=21
Please someone forward this thread to Elon Musk.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392602041025843203?s=21
Please someone forward this thread to Elon Musk.
First time I have been sincerely disappointed by the man.
Jump to: