[...]
I'm not going to agree to this, despite of their good intentions. Why is this needed?
Quote from: https://bitcoiners.network/get_started
Our app requires read and write permissions from Twitter to function.
Topic: [LAUNCHED] Bitcoincleanup.com: a website to stop Greenpeace's bitcoin FUD. - page 2. (Read 1895 times)
October 20, 2022, 01:15:01 PM
I'm not going to agree to this, despite of their good intentions. Why is this needed?
October 20, 2022, 01:06:23 PM
I found a site https://bitcoiners.network specifically for finding Bitcoiners to follow.
They can also launch follow campaigns to get bitcoiners to follow you.
Apparently somebody has already whitelisted the BitcoinCleanup twitter as a bitcoiner. Thank you, whoever you are.
Does anyone have experience using this site? I have about $100 in donations I can use for advertising and I'm wondering if it will be worthwhile to get a bunch of people to follow me. That will probably amplify my tweets against recent gargantuan Greenpeace garbage tweets.
EDIT: I think the service is actually for YOU to follow other accounts at once, not the other way around. Not sure though.
They can also launch follow campaigns to get bitcoiners to follow you.
Apparently somebody has already whitelisted the BitcoinCleanup twitter as a bitcoiner. Thank you, whoever you are.
Does anyone have experience using this site? I have about $100 in donations I can use for advertising and I'm wondering if it will be worthwhile to get a bunch of people to follow me. That will probably amplify my tweets against recent gargantuan Greenpeace garbage tweets.
EDIT: I think the service is actually for YOU to follow other accounts at once, not the other way around. Not sure though.
October 07, 2022, 09:18:10 AM
This need much more traction to start "trending".
That bi*ch a*s banker's PR agency so called "Greenpiece" has a few good million $ to spend on this campaign:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/15/environmental-groups-to-spend-another-1m-on-ads-for-bitcoin-code-change-after-the-merge/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-29/greenpeace-crypto-billionaire-lobby-to-change-bitcoin-s-code
There needs to be Medium articles, Twitter hashtags, big firms, influencers (as franky1 suggested), shares, likes, follows and the whole enchilada !
Or a "fluke" like the Magical Internet Money campaign on Reddit that goes viral all by itself. (a bit of wishful thinking never hurts)
GreenPiecesOfSh*t have:
- million dollars ad campaign
- petitions to huge investment firms (that have BTC in their portfolio I assume)
- campaign representatives are talking to members of Congress and the Biden administration and lawmakers
and many more.
Anyone has any creative guerilla marketing ideas ?
That bi*ch a*s banker's PR agency so called "Greenpiece" has a few good million $ to spend on this campaign:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/15/environmental-groups-to-spend-another-1m-on-ads-for-bitcoin-code-change-after-the-merge/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-29/greenpeace-crypto-billionaire-lobby-to-change-bitcoin-s-code
There needs to be Medium articles, Twitter hashtags, big firms, influencers (as franky1 suggested), shares, likes, follows and the whole enchilada !
Or a "fluke" like the Magical Internet Money campaign on Reddit that goes viral all by itself. (a bit of wishful thinking never hurts)
GreenPiecesOfSh*t have:
- million dollars ad campaign
- petitions to huge investment firms (that have BTC in their portfolio I assume)
- campaign representatives are talking to members of Congress and the Biden administration and lawmakers
and many more.
Anyone has any creative guerilla marketing ideas ?
October 03, 2022, 06:44:17 PM
Concealing your identity is a silly behavior? Why? Can't you have an opinion that you just don't want to be known for? Satoshi's turning in his grave.
I love that we have the freedom to choose. Adam Back, David Chaum, Hal Finney or Gregory Maxwell are all known by their real names, meanwhile Satoshi and lots of people writing in this thread aren't.Do consider that there's no way of knowing whether one of the 'real names' above may be posting here with a pseudonym / handle, as well. That's the beauty of pseudonyms. I don't think there's anything wrong with it and there are plenty of reasons for using or not using them. It's definitely possible that for NotATether's current goal, it makes more sense to present himself with his real name. Meanwhile for launching Bitcoin, it was definitely the right choice to do it under a handle.
October 03, 2022, 01:51:06 PM
Concealing your identity is a silly behavior? Why? Can't you have an opinion that you just don't want to be known for? Satoshi's turning in his grave.
ESR's words not mine.
Specifically in the case for endthefud.org, to me it didn't make any sense to put a handle there.
The lunatics following Greenpeace propaganda in particular will more readily listen to what a real person has to say than a handle. So in a way it gives me some credibility to push back future Greenpeace FUD beyond bitcointalk.
October 03, 2022, 01:23:24 PM
Concealing your identity is a silly behavior? Why? Can't you have an opinion that you just don't want to be known for? Satoshi's turning in his grave.
October 03, 2022, 12:54:45 PM
Many kudos to Ali Sherief NotATether for the time spent, as well! 
I don't want to derail the thread with this but ESR has the following to say about handles in his over 2-decade old "how to be a hacker" page. The second and third sentences are particularly relevant here.
Quote from: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
The problem with screen names or handles deserves some amplification. Concealing your identity behind a handle is a juvenile and silly behavior characteristic of crackers, warez d00dz, and other lower life forms. Hackers don't do this; they're proud of what they do and want it associated with their real names. So if you have a handle, drop it. In the hacker culture it will only mark you as a loser.
Basically it's a website full of articles written by real people - and there is not a single handle on endthefud.org written by a handle. Nobody who makes the decisions about crypto is going to bother reading it if I just made the pull request for an article written by "NotATeher".
I'm going to be doing an interview with Bitcoin Magazine soon and while a pseudonym will probably work for Cøbra or ZmnSCPxj, someone as unknown as myself probably won't get away with it.
It's not a big deal, you already have https://notatether.com and Github links where I shed my invisibility cloak long ago.
It's one of the reasons that people (you guys among others) are actually rallying around this site but not similar websites like this or some random tweet or forum message by a user account.
P.S.: damn, I still have to write about this site on my own blog!
October 03, 2022, 12:13:15 PM
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too.
In the last few years, with the abrupt rise of the Internet, banks have focused on lowering their costs, and more than half of their costs come from employees' incomes. Here the fintech comes. I'm sure that by 2030, there will be even less employees dedicated in financial services. And that's a good thing. These people shouldn't burden the economy by doing an inefficient job, while with technological improvements we can do the same job far more efficiently and cheaply. That's the actual energy waste. It'd be better, economically speaking, if they were devoted in jobs that require human hands, and can't be replaced by machines for the time being.
October 03, 2022, 11:53:24 AM
The only reason why they wrote something like "with Lightning, bitcoin becomes extremely energy-efficient" is because LN a doesn't actually mine any transactions, so I don't see LN as being relevant to this problem.
In general, all Layer 2 technologies should avoid any discussion about excessive energy usage since this is Layer 1's business exclusively (unless that layer 2 dabbles into the topic of mining blocks [like Merged Mining?])
Exactly!In general, all Layer 2 technologies should avoid any discussion about excessive energy usage since this is Layer 1's business exclusively (unless that layer 2 dabbles into the topic of mining blocks [like Merged Mining?])
That's the point: Bitcoin's energy consumption isn't just meant to secure the ~7 transactions per second, it's meant to secure countless applications on top of it.
October 03, 2022, 11:18:03 AM
Many kudos to Ali Sherief NotATether for the time spent, as well!
October 03, 2022, 11:05:44 AM
BitcoinCleanup is now listed on EndTheFUD.org
Github user "pox" was kind enough to merge my pull request to include this site on their page. BitcoinCleanup is listed under the subsection "Bitcoin uses dirty, non-renewable energy". Kudos to them.
Github user "pox" was kind enough to merge my pull request to include this site on their page. BitcoinCleanup is listed under the subsection "Bitcoin uses dirty, non-renewable energy". Kudos to them.
October 03, 2022, 06:50:30 AM
In this topic, I found Michel Khazzaka's paper: Bitcoin: Cryptopayments Energy Efficiency.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
It's a good counter argument though. If they say you eat too much it's a good defense if you can prove that they also eat too much, even if it doesn't disprove their point.
Bitcoin does consume a lot of energy, but banks consume even more. Banks are important, just as bitcoin is important. I don't get why some people are attacking bitcoin when bitcoin isn't attacking them or their institutions. It just wants to coexist.
As for your argument about commuting, I'd skip that entirely. It's impossible to know how much energy is used here just as we don't know how much fuel a bitcoin mine operators use. Say, you have a business in Iceland and have to travel 1000km to get from your house to the place where miners are. One bank employee has to go across the street to get home, another will travel for an hour to get there.
October 03, 2022, 06:26:06 AM
In this topic, I found Michel Khazzaka's paper: Bitcoin: Cryptopayments Energy Efficiency.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
The only reason why they wrote something like "with Lightning, bitcoin becomes extremely energy-efficient" is because LN a doesn't actually mine any transactions, so I don't see LN as being relevant to this problem.
In general, all Layer 2 technologies should avoid any discussion about excessive energy usage since this is Layer 1's business exclusively (unless that layer 2 dabbles into the topic of mining blocks [like Merged Mining?])
October 03, 2022, 04:59:35 AM
Taken here from some thread about Bitcoin being 56x more efficient than banking and my immediate (perhaps existing, rather) thoughts:
1. No study has really been truly complete in calculating cost + benefit. Neither for Bitcoin nor for banking. It always tends to cherry pick, rather than set a benchmark for what cost is, and what benefit is -- not to mention Bitcoin doesn't quite add up as a rival to what modern banks do. Khazzaka's paper (referenced here by Loyce), for example, is a great start but already identifies Bitcoin as a Monetary System and Means of Payment (which are merely 2 of many more services banking provides).
Earlier mentioned that there's a greater need to involve academics, scholars, economists, educators, scientists working objectively and in neutral intent of discovery... rather than celebrities, devs, pro-Bitcoin merchs etc.
We still need more fact-finding, if we really want to combat FUD.
1. No study has really been truly complete in calculating cost + benefit. Neither for Bitcoin nor for banking. It always tends to cherry pick, rather than set a benchmark for what cost is, and what benefit is -- not to mention Bitcoin doesn't quite add up as a rival to what modern banks do. Khazzaka's paper (referenced here by Loyce), for example, is a great start but already identifies Bitcoin as a Monetary System and Means of Payment (which are merely 2 of many more services banking provides).
Earlier mentioned that there's a greater need to involve academics, scholars, economists, educators, scientists working objectively and in neutral intent of discovery... rather than celebrities, devs, pro-Bitcoin merchs etc.
We still need more fact-finding, if we really want to combat FUD.
October 03, 2022, 04:50:12 AM
In this topic, I found Michel Khazzaka's paper: Bitcoin: Cryptopayments Energy Efficiency.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
It gives an interesting point of view. It counts the energy needed for printing fiat money, transporting money, bank offices, commuting bank employees, data centers and more. It then compares it to Bitcoin's energy consumption to "conclude that Bitcoin PoW consumes at least ~27.9 times less energy than the classical electronic monetary and payment system" (p. 19 of the above paper).
Of course, one could argue that even if Bitcoin takes over the global financial system, the millions of bank employees would still commute to some office somewhere, there would still be bank offices (for instance for providing loans), and Bitcoin users consume energy too. But it does show the potential of the Lightning Network to replace all global transactions at much lower energy consumption than the current banking system.
October 02, 2022, 06:27:41 PM
I mean for instance people who flare gas from oil production for example (larger scale)
That's actually big business, and it's said to lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to flaring, because a generator has a more complete combustion than an open flame.
Up until now the problem was what to do with all that electricity out in the middle of nowhere. But ASICs can sit in steel boxes wherever the cheap / free electricity is produced. That's super unique; there's nothing like it. October 02, 2022, 11:35:42 AM
I mean for instance people who flare gas from oil production for example (larger scale)
That's actually big business, and it's said to lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to flaring, because a generator has a more complete combustion than an open flame. October 02, 2022, 10:00:06 AM
I need to get an audience with Bitcoin Magazine.
I somehow need to get Bitcoin Magazine's attention to get them to interview me (and this site of course). It's the key to bursting the influence of this site beyond bitcointalk.
If anyone can get a hold of them and direct them to the email address on the bitcoincleanup webpage, I'll be greatful.
I somehow need to get Bitcoin Magazine's attention to get them to interview me (and this site of course). It's the key to bursting the influence of this site beyond bitcointalk.
If anyone can get a hold of them and direct them to the email address on the bitcoincleanup webpage, I'll be greatful.
October 02, 2022, 09:53:37 AM
Quote
The last part is probably the most important because I don't want this to be a solo effort. It's going to fail if I take this on alone. I need the entire community support behind me in these critical times for Bitcoin, which is currently under seize from governments and trolls alike.
Yes, you cannot do it alone without the support of the community because the community will be the one to help you to spread the information all over the world for other countries, citizens and governments to show interest on this project and make it popular to the whole world. I think, with the support of the community, it will make it easy for other people to change their mind to join this community to be part of the good things Bitcoin is doing in the life of Bitcoiners. I will definitely contribute my effort on this project to become successful in the future so that other people will know that we fully behind Bitcoin in the community.
October 02, 2022, 09:41:40 AM
I believe they would shut down their business, sell the ASICs to people who have access to free electricity and the machines would keep running.
Free electricity? You mean to those who mine with renewables?In general, there are ASIC buyers at almost any Bitcoin exchange rate, but the production is still limited.
Jump to: