Topic: GREENPEACE INTENSIFIES CAMPAIGN AGAINST BITCOIN FOLLOWING ETHEREUM'S MERGE - page 3. (Read 894 times)

The uselessness and flaws of PoS and how they can be easily overcome by centralization have been evident to all for about a decade. You shouldn't forget that we already have old centralized PoS shitcoins and now we have one more. The fact that ETH is bigger than other shitcoins doesn't mean the algorithm or their centralization is any different.

The only thing that may become evident is very specific bugs related to the mess known as the ethereum protocol that may start showing themselves in the future.

We know Greenpeace was taking money from Ripple for their anti-Bitcoin propaganda campaign. They are not arguing in good faith and are undermining what they're about when they take bribes from those looking to promote their altcoins. Greenpeace used to accept Bitcoin so they are fully aware of it's benefits. They only decided to start caring about the environmental impact when they started receiving millions of dollars to promote proof-of-stake.

How's that? He just told you how he himself mines with renewable energy. How can this be bad for the environment?
It actually appears that the 'echo chamber gang' are the mainstream media and whoever is behind them, trying to push this narrative.

The ultimate goal is not helping the environment, but replacing PoW with PoS which is just fiat in sheep's clothing. It gives the people who are in control in the fiat system, the same amount of control, while PoW doesn't.

no doomad. only a couple of your pals beleive your version of events.. even the core devs admit the real version of events that counter your narrative(get the hint you are not showing loyalism by pushing the 5yo fake story first presented by some devs)

the FLAG of NYA was to get segwit activated .. the actual code level and block data level of changes requested by NYA
(via the mandated crap of rejecting the opposition... data code, and flag statistics show the truth)
the second part.. which was not code. but just social "promise"/"compromise" was a later 2mb block...
the 2mb later promise (no date specified) never flourished

but we all know using common sense and logic that the 2mb part was not the real agenda.. as it was just the ploy/bait to get segwit flagged in via the NYA tactic
 you know it. and though you want to play social drama 3 card shuffle to confuse the matter.. there was a hard fork. so dont go playing it was a softfork (even that image in chart shows the SOFT didnt happen. because the blue-red shows a HARK happened.

anywy

just put your stupid social games aside

point is..
devs acknowledge the tactics of the mandate code and the flag events to break off the opposition to get a (unnatural) 100% which is what data also shows

and the emphasise is people need to know a mandated activation HAS occured. without true unbroken majority pre activation. (because they broke consensus pre activation to fake the 100%..)
and it can happen again. !

no matter how forgetful you are. block data is immutable and its data does not lie nor does other peoples memory. so just accept it.

the data overrules your silly games. so give up your charade

and people need to be aware that it can happen again so that we can watch for tactics of certain dev groups and economic nodes pushing for PoS

instead of being lulled into social drama games of fake promise and  finger pointing of blame other people EG current game to make people look at greenpeace, when the real things we should look at is this months push to change regulations from SEC to CFTC which come with actual ramifications

yes changing to CFTC regulators will change things and affect things
dont play your ignorant games for once

The whole idea of the NYA was to push for a 2mb base blocksize after SegWit activated, you total fucking cretin.  Just because you still conflate the thing that actually activated SegWit with the NYA (despite the fact they were two very different things), doesn't make it true.  The NYA supporters never got their 2mb base blocksize.  The true majority resisted it.  Now stop derailing the thread with your manipulative horseshit.  Absolute fucking basketcase.


//EDIT:

Since franky1 is clearly insane and doesn't have the slightest grip on reality, here's a reminder of the actual NYA for all the sane people out there:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/New_York_Agreement
https://fullycrypto.com/what-was-the-bitcoin-new-york-agreement
https://www.mycryptopedia.com/scaling-bitcoin-the-new-york-agreement-explained/

SegWit2x/SegWit2mb demonstrably never went ahead.  Regular SegWit was activated via BIP91.  The NYA was deemed a failure by everyone (except franky1, who somehow thinks it succeeded).

such ignorance and lies from you are astonishing you have been debunked dozens of times. you keep accepting you been debunked, forget that you got debunked to then try to push your nonsense again that there was no hardfork to activate segwit

hard data in the blockchain. show that the NYA(blueline) triggered at 80% to start ignoring opposition blocks, to get segwit(redline) activated
by showing a high segwit acceptance via removing opposition blocks.

segwit(redline) only reached a natural consensus of 43.75% in july
but it was because of the blue line which was the NYA which required a flag to reach 80% for a period of time. to then trigger the rejection of opposers
the trigger event of ignoring opposing blocks to segwitshows that the red line then went unnaturally horizontal in an even straight ligne.. because MATH
every day e144 block. if all blocks were 100% segwit signalling due to 0 opposers plays out like this
882-43.75%      1026-50.89%      1170-58%      1314-65.18%
1458-72.32%    1602-79.46%      1746-86.6%   1890-93.75%
2016-100%

thus had 100% on (unnatural to actually have 100% in a decentralised world)
everyone can see the block data

segwit had 100% because there was 0% opposition.
in a natural consensus of decentralised world 100% is not natural

the only way there was 0% opposition is because the opposition blocks were removed by august 1st.
do you know what also happened on august 1st yep BCH
yes the blockdata and BCH exist. there was a fork. now stop being so forgetful

stop pretending segwit was soft becasue the soft had only 20%.. and remember that it was a hard because there was 100% opposition due to the hard mandate tactics to ignore opposers before segwit activated. and yes there was a fork because BCH was created.. and no bch did not create themselves. they were pushed off btc into a fork via the block rejects

there is DATA, there is actual real life proof of events..

so after 5 years of your ignorant trolling pretending you keep forgetting and cant remember events.. just stop

the CODE. the blocdata, is more proof than your social drama links of peoples opinion that wanted to set narratives to shift blame
...
and with that said
give up the social drama games of loyal buddy siding..
instead try to be helpful and actually know that events occurred and those mandated upgrade activations can happen again. so that people can be risk aware incase another mandated activation happened where the tactics are used to activate a feature like PoS

oh and you do realise that the core devs admit it occurred.. so why are you 7 years later trying to pretend it didnt happen. because its no longer fanboy protectionism of your favoured devs reputation for aiding in pulling off the tactic by pretending they didnt.. because they admit it did happen. so whats your agenda for your ignorance?

At the end of the day, bitcoin is found guilty on both counts, btc using green energy is guilty, don't use green energy is even more guilty. It is a back and forth meme that will never end as long as the name bitcoin exists.
Even though it has been shown on several occasions that btc mining is not a threat to the environment nor waste energy, the anti-bitcoin will never change their views towards btc.

That's right. Also rich idiots idiots. They are raising a lot of money from brainwashed rich individuals (or maybe not brainwashed but more of that later). In 2013 they lost £3m because a member of their group decided to play with the raised money on the stock market and lost it all

As for those brainwashed or not, their arctic campaign managed to stop Shell from drilling there, but other oil companies continued to do so. This pout Shell at a disadvantage. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the competitors donated to the cause.

Can you imagine that the electricity (nuclear, coil, oil...) used by thousands of banks in their building, machines...and millions of tree cut for their daily supplements are greenish and machines used to mine Bitcoin are bad?
I am pro saving the planet and cutting useless waste of earth resources but this is just hypocrisy from their sides.
Ethereum made a move that needs to be evaluated in middle and long term since it is a big change from one of the biggest cryptocurrencies.

This is just nonsense. Climate is changing, you should have noticed this by now. Temperature is changing. There is increased drought. It is harming health. Unless you're about to question every paper out there?

Sure and it can be used as a weapon (it's already been), but that doesn't mean there's no climate change.

If it's securing the network it isn't waste. It might be for you, who isn't using bitcoin, but apparently not for everybody else.

All devs.  Not just core devs.  I wouldn't expect you to be honest about that, though.  You're too busy trying to tell people what they shouldn't be allowed to do.     



If you took off your dementia hat, you'd realise no one has amnesia.  No one is going to remember things that never actually occurred (outside of your imagination).  If anything, your views were more closely aligned with what the NYA group wanted, because they were asking for a hardfork.  You want a hardfork.  Guess what?  This so-called "economic majority" of yours didn't get what they wanted.  Because they were never the true majority.  The majority decided not to pursue a hardfork at that time.  That's the reality you still seem unable to recognise.

Now, if you're quite finished trying to distort recorded events and generally being a paranoid-delusional crackpot, screeching about boogeymen and jumping at shadows, please let some sanity prevail and stop spouting nonsense.

I wonder if there was a campaign against the internet back then and they use the global warming nonsense as they using it against Bitcoin right now. If so, I bet those people are using the internet nowadays and forget about their nonsense because obviously they were getting paid to do it by some companies who will gonna lose their businesses when the internet becomes essential all around the world. I think history will repeat itself when they see there's no way for them to spend their wealth except to buy bitcoins in the future.

says the (dcg sponsored) core dev team fanboy

says the guy that loved core devs(mostly under the umbrella of DCG) ability to mandate an upgrade activation with support from the 2017 NY agreement of economic nodes

says the guy that things core devs should code what they like and if users dont like it they can go play on an altcoin. ..

once you see that DCG is regulated by america. and DCG can pull that same 2017 tactic again. and you see that CFTC are trying to take place over the SEC. thus allowing a new door for the EPA to jump in..
.. you should see the risks of possibility. to be risk aware

anyway its not that CFTC have power of me (bitcoin user but british)
its not power over me
its the big exchanges and merchants (THE ECONOMIC NODES) which are regulated and...
..regulators have power over THEM

YOU KNOW THIS STUFF dont put your amnesia hat on now, dont play dumb and then try hugging your pals back to sleep telling them everything is fine and they dont need to do anything..
you know full well about the NYA and the mandated code event all sponsored and organised by those within the DCG portfolio

and users nodes end up(not much choice) following the chain that the exchanges(economic nodes follow) and merchants decide to accept as BTC. because users want to have their transactions seen on the chain merchants and exchanges follow so that people can buy/sell or swap for fiat with such

as for regulators pushing Devs
again just as DCG did in 2017 with the economic nodes(NYA) DCG also sponsored and demanded their employees(blockstream) to code the mandated upgrade.

yep now its "seems" like there are now 3 teams (brinks, blockstream and chaincodelabs) but under a CFTC regulation, sister with the EPA. bitcoin could have developers regulated to do software updates FOR/on behalf of certain regulated services.  

yep DCG group as a financial portfolio company might get pressure from regulators to push for a PoS "mandated upgrade"
thus re-visiting the tactics of 2017

these tactics are something people need to be aware of and remember.. more so then some social drama of greenpeace

No, “climate change” is not real. Just because the majority is saying so, that doesn't make something to be a scientific truth. We’ve seen this so many times before in history. This is so well documented, that I’m not going to lose my time posting links to what it is and has been obvious since this “climate change” propaganda started.

There’s barely 90 to 100 years of temperature and climate data. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. How could anyone get conclusions about any change with 100 years within a data range of 4,5 billion years? Nobody in his right mind would consider such an “study” serious because it is not. There is no data to confirm any “climate change”. There’s no data to link humans to that unconfirmed climate change.

This is just another anthropocentric religion. Another one! I do not discuss other people’s beliefs, but do not call it science. It is a religion. Full Stop.

And when a religion is the State religion, guess what? It will be the means the State will use to justify collecting and stealing money from its citizens, while they bend down their heads and consent.

This is what BTC is about. This the real people’s silent revolution against the State. It has started by blowing up the monetary foundations of this State totalitarian regime and will finish by debunking all the lies the States have been spreading to enslave their citizens (the fiat money system allows them to spend without limits to spread their lies). The “climate change” is one of the biggest.

Look for astrophysicist Pears Corbyn. He’s a scientist! Read or listen to what he’s saying about all this climate change BS. Oh, yes, he’s been already tagged as a “conspiracy theorist”, as probably is my case, Ron Paul’s, Tulsi Gabard’s and anyone who dares to challenge globalist elite falsehoods. Of course, how come not? We are Russian agents, and whatever come to their mains. The typical communist resort of calling anyone against all their nonsense a “fascist” (which the Democrats in the US have adopted recently as their own basic tactic), as much as the Republicans used to call from the 50’s up to the 80’s anyone opposing their warmongering BS as “communists”. Nothing new, so nothing to be surprised.

---

And the real problem to convert BTC to PoS does not lie in the miners, as they’re just services providers to the nodes (they owners). BTC belongs to anyone or less say, it belongs to everyone who decide to install a full BTC node. It is not possible to move from PoW as it would hamper single normal people to own the very source of their wealth: running a full BTC node. 

PoW is one of the greatest inventions of history. PoS is nothing but the same BS running every single fiat currency, company stock, and so on. There’s no such an invention in PoS. It is just an euphemism for same old legacy BS that’s been running for ages.


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

The truth of the matter is that "Greenhouse" need to understand is that a change in the consensus of Bitcoin from PoW to PoS is not the solution to that perfect climate they anticipate for, because we have got many other factors still affecting climate more than the energy emissions used for bitcoin mining, such as burning of fuel, oil and gas, and volcanic eruptions which occurs on a regular basis, because a change of its consensus will actually deviate the true meaning of Bitcoin, which stands for a decentralized and independent digital currency

Either Bitcoin doesn't have a jurisdiction or it has many thousands of jurisdictions.  I don't see why people constantly get their panties in a twist about the US above all else.  If you aren't an American, they don't hold power over you, so stop treating them as though they do.  Bitcoin is global and this isn't 'Team America: World Police'.  These bureaucratic idiots are over-reaching and don't seem to realise that American influence on the world stage is beginning to wane.  Centralised services, however, do have jurisdictions.  If you use any form of custodial service, then yes, be very concerned if those services are based in the US.  

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen recently raised an alarm that most European nations are losing years of environmental sustainability efforts in a few months because of the shortage of gas. Yes these nations need to ensure that their inhabitants survive this challenging period but they also need to know that Bitcoin has the capacity to positively touch the lives of many, hence it is also very essential.    

Greenpeace is wasting a whole lot of money that could have been used to seek an alternative source of power. There are many nonpowered dams that can be converted to powered dams and most old dams can be remodeled to produce more power.
It is also important to note that Ethereum's switch to PoS is in its experimental stage. In a few months, the challenges and disadvantages of this switch would become evident to all.

You realize you are on a bitcoin forum, right?

Of course there will be bias when topics like this come up.

Just a week or two ago, there was a thread asking whether "this is the end for cryptocurrency". 50 people voted. Every single one of them voted "No", not a single one "Yes".

This is exactly the issue. First off, I'd argue supporting a currency, with electricity, that divests away from proof of war (the $USD / $EUR / etc), is much better for the planet than not doing so.

But that said, the biggest issue is what you already said, dealing with opportunity cost. Even if they were correct (they aren't), there are things that they could battle against with a much higher saving-the-planet-ROI.

Total nonsense. It's so bad I have to wonder if it's a government co-opted plant.

How many TWh are spent annually on Bitcoin mining? How much in comparison will be lost on an annual basis? The main question is where is Bitcoin in this whole problem that you and similar proponents keep highlighting?

---

For someone who compares Bitcoin to tulips, you don't seem very intelligent?

---

I have a feeling that in 10 years you'll feel pretty stupid when you read your post - along with these geniuses from Greenpeace.