Topic: [LAUNCHED] Bitcoincleanup.com: a website to stop Greenpeace's bitcoin FUD. - page 3. (Read 1895 times)

But inevitable to happen, again if the price skyrocketed. As a great economist once said:
Free electricity? You mean to those who mine with renewables?

There are no more miners to acquire, though. Manufacturing of these chips is the bottleneck right now, as far as I know.

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.

Carrd won't let me add a rel=nofollow to the website, but SEO works by a website passing their domain authority to the linked websites, and since my DA is so crappy (as I just started this site recently), it will give them virtually no extra DA.

On the contrary, their linking to my website, a doubtful event, would've given me a slightly larger DA as well - their website was started 7 months ago.

But, the profit is what motivates them. Some miners might not do anything, but the rational behavior if the price skyrocketed (ceteris paribus) is to acquire more ASICs. As the marginal cost becomes lower than the price, you should acquire the machinery until there's the equilibrium point between price and marginal cost.

This is generalized. Other factors might affect their behavior (such as price of energy, price of ASICs, state intervention etc.), but the bigger the price fluctuation, the less the importance of these factors. I'm pretty sure that if we fell to $1,000 per BTC, some miners would shut their business down, no doubt.

True! Every watt you can save without reducing your hashrate, is directly correlated to more money in your pockets. That's also the reason GPU miners draw less power from their cards than gamers. They aim treading a very fine line between as low current settings as possible, while keeping the chip stable and running at reasonable frequency / hashrate.

Also, never forget that for reducing greenhouse gases, we need to (1) transition machines to run on electricity and then (2) generate that electricity cleanly. In Bitcoin mining (opposed to gold mining) this first step is already given, which is great.

This reminds me of a video a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZEaYjo4ZJU
They acknowledge that solar energy has a storage problem and that batteries are needed. However, it's a known fact that the Lithium supply is not endless and getting it out of the earth is not great, either.
That's why overbuilding renewables (e.g. to have enough sun even in winter) and using the excess for Bitcoin mining is a better / alternative solution.

To be honest, I think NotATether is right. As far as I know, there are no 'reserves' of ASICs ready to turn on as soon as the Bitcoin price skyrockets. They may relocate if it gets too expensive to mine somewhere (either by moving own operations or selling the devices and closing a facility), but they essentially keep running at all times.

That's what NotATether's letter templates are made for, though, right? So I think that's covered.


@NotATether; I also just noticed that you give Greenpeace a backlink, which should improve their SEO right?

i still think that while notatether is doing this project which i do admire... we are still not seeing the big picture

educating the vegans greenpeace, we are being distracted by not defending bitcoin against the regulators

this month bitcoin swapped from SEC to CFTC
meaning instead of just regulating financial services (sec) regulators under CFTC can now approach more features involved in bitcoin at the gates of the community. such as regulating and licencing the mining, and such

heck even just a few days into control the CFTC has already hit some services(some worthy of being hit, some were not)

CFTC want to paint a bright happy light on the change over by saying their involvement can push bitcoin price by 2X uptwards.. yet i see the ramifications of their involvement.

which most are to busy to care about due to other social distraction campaigns happening over the last month

i do applaud notatethers efforts to push this campaign. but lets always keep in mind to not just bait social poking and instead look at the actual things that can actually hurt bitcoin and target those more

EG the politicians making rules based on the vegans greenpeace nonsense.. lets educate the regulators more so than the vegans greenpeace

Yes, however: Bitcoin mining incentivizes for energy efficiency more than gold mining does. Besides technological efficiency, mining bitcoins incentivizes transition to 100% renewable energy. For instance, excess in use of wind power can be used instead of being wasted, which leads me to: Bitcoins are everywhere and nowhere. The bitcoin mining infrastructure is flexible, mobile, and can lead to more efficient functioning over all. This is necessary if we want to utilize renewable energy properly.

Let me see.

That sounds a little absolute. Little fluctuations might not have a direct affectation to the energy required, but if the price skyrocketed I'm sure we'd observe something similar to the difficulty as well.

The rest of your text is fine. Whoever refuses to accept it is just biased, but I'm looking forward to have some talk with these people. Maybe we could invite them over for discussion in some mailing list? Bitcointalk isn't the place. Such discussions must be made in a neutral environment.

@BlackHatCoiner

I added some more substance to the first card (and changed the title of the second one). Check it out, and if you have any other suggestions, just post them here

This is not meant to tell Bitcoin doesn't consume. It does. This was meant to compare with things closer to the American "average Joe", so it doesn't look as scarily huge like 's total consumption (where industry consumption may or may not have a major role).
Of course, you are not wrong, but there is the volume comparison and there is the utility comparison. It looked interesting to me as volume (while you've discussed the utility). However, if this is not useful, no biggie.

PS. The consumption per transaction is a bullshit metric and maybe that should be debunked/explained too (but not to me and in terms a non-bitcoiner can understand).

This post is new to me! As you might tell, I'm not a big follower of his, either..
I guess Vitalik's new claims might have been conceived under this 'new security model' / new definitions, that he came up with to make PoS even somewhat secure in the first place.. Otherwise it would definitely be a direct logical contradiction.

Anyhow, the few lines I skimmed were already littered with errors that it may warrant its own post. I'm not sure it would get much views in the Altcoin section though, sadly.
The reason it's important to highlight falsehoods like this is that these are used as strawman arguments to brainwash people into thinking something's wrong with PoW / mining.

For instance:

It's beyond me how he can honestly write this. Does he write it to make it seem like algorithm switches are done this easily? To then help his narrative that PoS is a simple drop-in replacement for PoW?

Haven't ever read much from Vitalik. Why has he preferred Proof-of-Stake over Proof-of-Work? Besides his and his buddies' pockets obviously. Less security, less decentralization, less objectivity. In what the hell is it better? He can't just portrait himself as a humanist, and attempt to switch the entire billion-worth cryptocurrency to an inferior mechanism, just for the sake of the environment.

Meanwhile in November 2020, about 6 years later than that blog post, Vitalik contradicts himself: https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html

We agree! The sweets (energy) were not wasted, because they allowed something else (have energy for your body / create Bitcoin) to happen which wouldn't be possible otherwise.
I think the problem is that people assume since PoS allows to 'create coins' without work, PoW is wasteful. It's crucial to explain that it's not possible to provide what PoW provides, without the 'work' component.

Remember this quote from Vitalik; he admitted it himself..

Thank you very much!

I got the signatures from Jayce a few days ago, but I'm busy photoshopping the logo to remove the ugly background wireframe on the outside and maybe a few other adjustments - once that's done I'll update the avatar.

I'll make it once I've collected the data. Update: It's going to be more work than I thought, I won't do this any time soon.

Playing devil's advocate here: to me, this doesn't prove Bitcoin doesn't consume a lot of energy. If anything, the same energy consumption as about 200 million refrigerators is a lot (and the average American refrigerator is a lot bigger than they are in my country).
That brings me back to my previous point: like virtually any other industry, Bitcoin's energy consumption depends on it's profitability. Gold mining is comparable: if there's more money to be made, gold miners will burn more diesel to get the gold. If excavators become more energy efficient, they'll buy more excavators.
Refrigerators aren't operated in such a way: if your new one has better insulation and consumes only half the electricity, you're not adding another one.

Now that I did the math: 1 Bitcoin transaction consumes about as much energy as a US fridge in a year. Of course, this is mainly because of the block reward and not really because of the transaction itself. After all, if the block would be empty, it wouldn't have consumed less energy.
When arguing Bitcoin's energy consumption is worth it, how about explaining (and promoting) it's potential? Each Bitcoin block could just as well secure millions of LN transactions in the future. Maybe it can be compared to how gold used to secure the value of bank notes back in the days before they went full BRRR.
I often read the argument that one Bitcoin transaction consumes an x amount of energy, which ignores the potential that a million LN transaction could lead to a very low energy consumption per transaction. The Bitcoin blockchain could keep all those transactions secure without increasing the energy consumption per Bitcoin block.

The numbers are no doubt true, but it doesn't mean anything. You can't use transmission losses to power a Bitcoin miner, and you can't avoid the losses either. It's a trade off between power line thickness and power losses.

I've read today something that may be of help.
It's a comparison between Bitcoin consumption and others' (US fridges, US electricity transmission/distribution loses). It can help to show Bitcoin doesn't consume that much electricity.

@NotATether
I hope you don't mind, but I started this thread yesterday in the Services section: Looking for people with significant social media influence/follower count.
I am hoping we can find or reach some people who use their social media accounts for crypto-related activities to push this information further. Make a post in the thread if you want since you created the site, and maybe explain why it's important to take some initiative.

Perhaps remove it from that paragraph, and make it a headline: "Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, etc., all require energy to work properly. What makes you think an unstoppable, censorship-resistant, free-of-human-error, efficient, global payment network doesn't?"

The essential benefits you ought to describe, should be about Proof-of-Work, because half of your subject is to demonstrate why Proof-of-Stake is not an alternative. Describing the benefits of Bitcoin might seem on-topic, but the core of Bitcoin, and the assertions we argue in favor of it, rely on Proof-of-Work.

I don't like it, because the myth isn't evident. Is it that Proof-of-Work is a waste? Is it that Proof-of-Stake comes with no drawbacks? Is it both? I presume it's both, but it isn't clear enough. Some may comprehend you're admitting Proof-of-Work is a wasteful mechanism, which isn't true. Securing the network of this significant monetary alternative is definitely not a waste.

The energy is neither wasted nor does it "get saved" in miners' pocket. It's used, gone, removed from supply. When you eat sweets with sugar, and gain this little energy which you then use to study, it's spent. Your paperwork doesn't contain that energy, nor can you replace that paperwork with sugar. And of course, eating these sweets was definitely not a waste, because it helped you do this one job. You might had used them elsewhere, like selling them or treating them, which would lead to other outcomes, but you're absolutely the one who's deciding their purpose.

I have added some more info about Proof of Stake, and Ethereum's version of it, since Greenpeace is aggressively using that as a talking point. Let me know what you think of the changes, especially @BlackHatCoiner (I did not come around to making all of the proposed changes yet).

Imagine someone getting all upset about car manufacturers requiring energy to cut and bend metal, power the machines in the factories and everything else.
Additionally to the (for some rather vague) argument that 'the energy is not wasted; it is stored in the coins' value' or 'the energy is converted into BTC which have value because of what we can do with them', there is this more tangible argument that the energy doesn't just poof away, but gets money into the miners' pockets.

Just how in lots of other jobs, you buy some energy to run some machines and try to get more money back out. Nobody ever complains about that. But in case of Bitcoin, they demand that the machines run without energy...
These people are used to everything being so abstracted away from them that they might not even realize that the internet is not a 'magic cloud', but power-hungry datacenters, as well.

Sounds good to me!

Premium side-bar spot on my website already!

In your opinion, what should I replace this particular bullet point with?

I feel as though the others can be kept to provide a comparison point as long as I manage to demonstrate that Bitcoin is an essential benefit to the world, as you said.



How about I add a second sentence to the myth so that it becomes: "Proof of Work is a waste of energy, but Proof of Stake is environmentally friendly with no drawbacks"?


Will do.


Will do as well.


That will provide some more myths to bust although I'll have to figure out how to refute all of them without turning the website into a long essay.