GREENPEACE INTENSIFIES CAMPAIGN AGAINST BITCOIN FOLLOWING ETHEREUM'S MERGE

[JaimeAlejandro]

Here is the link: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/greenpeace-intensifies-campaign-against-bitcoin-after-ethereum-merge.

They just don’t get it. Of course, it is impossible to understand something when their income depends on not understanding it. Well, this is the difference between honesty (Bitcoin) and total moral corruption (Ethereum and the rest of the fiat world).

I repeat. There is no such an invention in PoS. This is the way fiat currencies and even the gold standard worked since the origins of monetary history. All modern nationalized fiat currencies (the USD, the EUR, the GBP, etc.) are already digital and working under the PoS model.  Where is the innovation? Nowhere.

This is the computer versus the typing machine, and old fogeys proposing going back to the typing machine because computers spend energy. Well, you type… I’ll use a computer. Let’s see who wins.

[kryptqnick]

I wish they spent money on something more meaningful, not on ads against PoW. Some are fast to attack Bitcoin because they don't like it much, don't understand it, and think they can succeed if they go against it. That's not possible, the consensus to move from PoW to PoS won't be reached.
Climate change is real, but fighting Bitcoin won't stop it or even meaningfully make the problem smaller. There are plenty of other areas where meaningful change is possible and where advocating for change would make more sense.
Also, it would be nice if they did their research to prove that if they succeed, things will actually get better and it won't be that the dirty energy Bitcoin used would immediately get used up by other players, so it won't even make that tiny difference it's supposed to make. And, on the contrary, I've heard interesting arguments that Bitcoin can actually stimulate switch to green energy because it can be what creates demand for it.

[Queentoshi]

Climate change is real, but fighting Bitcoin won't stop it or even meaningfully make the problem smaller. There are plenty of other areas where meaningful change is possible and where advocating for change would make more sense.

Bitcoin is not the only challenge to climate change, there are many other challenges even with more effect on climate than just bitcoins. They are just a group of individuals who have misplaced priorities and have been misled because of misinformation or under information about the major causes of climate changes. If they have had proper information, they would channel their energy plus resources to campaigning about Increasing deforestation and increased combustion of coal, oil and gas which are leading causes.

[famososMuertos]

The mixture of GreenPeace, ETH, Merge and putting bitcoin at the end only shows that there is always a search for a topic to direct opinion matrices and start creating "speculation" around the real debate, the Merge and that ETH fans express their opinion.

By the way, who finances the GP campaign?

...//...,,,,
Also, it would be nice if they did their research to prove that if they succeed, things will actually get better and it won't be that the dirty energy Bitcoin used would immediately get used up by other players, so it won't even make that tiny difference it's supposed to make. And, on the contrary, I've heard interesting arguments that Bitcoin can actually stimulate switch to green energy because it can be what creates demand for it.

+1
There is a queue of old companies in energy consumption and others that are surely yet to come, or surely many of the existing ones will grow in consumption over the years, so as you mentioned, green solutions are the way to incorporate them into a long-term solution, that is, not a punctual one as it wants to be seen with bitcoin.

[jackg]

I wish they spent money on something more meaningful, not on ads against PoW. Some are fast to attack Bitcoin because they don't like it much, don't understand it, and think they can succeed if they go against it.

If they had a project of buying up bogland so it couldn't be vandalised/burnt or actually invested in renewables or lobbying for them they'd be much more productive - especially now when oil has doubled in price at least in a lot of places.

If you complain about bitcoin being PoW on an ad, is there not.apotential you're advertising bitcoin to those who are against you too - which might be a lot of people?

I repeat. There is no such an invention in PoS. This is the way fiat currencies and even the gold standard worked since the origins of monetary history. All modern nationalized fiat currencies (the USD, the EUR, the GBP, etc.) are already digital and working under the PoS model.  Where is the innovation? Nowhere.

Based on the fact 2 companies hold 40% of the eth staking capital, it might be worse than banking as PoS and is definitely worse than customer/investor owned banks too (that used to exist and have been reinvented).

[The Cryptovator]

What's new? These attacks aren't new for Bitcoin. But still, Bitcoin stands strong. It's not possible to move Bitcoin from PoW to PoS. Bitcoin isn't like Ethereum. Because Ethereum has a team who are deciding things and controlling everything as well. But Bitcoin doesn't have a team and miners have to decide. Do you think miners will ever support PoS? I don't think so since they are going to affect it in the first place. Just forget about technical things or how secure PoW is. Miners will never support PoS for Bitcoin.

[franky1]

lets get real. and understand the risks..
not for Fud or horror or scare tactics but about thinking of the weaknesses to be better prepared

the 2017 saga did not prove "bitcoin strong" it proved the opposite.

the cartel of the DCG did implement a upgrade without high true consensus.. yep they mandated an activation using a couple tactics of a NY agreement of economic nodes(exchanges/main merchants) and code(UAHF(yes it was H not S)

governments can use regulation on bitcoin businesses to push a NY agreement style on the merchants/exchanges to do a UAHF (H pretending to be S) on a mandated date and get github to only keep the bitcoin repo account online if it obides to only code a PoS upgrade. whereby the main devs of core who are employees of 3 DCG child companies, brinks, chaincodelabs and blockstream are then pushed to code it.

yep the exact tactic of the mandated activation of segwit can be used again to mandate a PoS. where all the merchant services and exchanges would only be(via regulation) allowed to accept and service customers of btc if the chain is PoS (regulators already tell exchanges not to service monero/liquid/ln)

so it is a possible risk. and we need to be aware.. not stroked to sleep to pretend people dont have to do anything and everything will be fine.. much like told to do nothing in 2017 because the mandate would be fine

Ex-lead maintainer of core (Wlad) left recently. and he is right.. bitcoin needs to become less centralised. because there are central points of failure as 2017 proved

[coinycoiny]

Its not just greenpeace. Basically anyone who knows how much power is wasted by mining btc would agree. This forum is a bit of an echo chamber though so doubt my option will hold much sway.

[OgNasty]

Its not just greenpeace. Basically anyone who knows how much power is wasted by mining btc would agree. This forum is a bit of an echo chamber though so doubt my option will hold much sway.

Most Bitcoiners reach a point where they begin using alternative energy to mine.  I personally wouldn't have a 12kWh solar system if it weren't for Bitcoin.  Now with them using Bitcoin mining to cut down on wasted natural gas, you can even make the argument that Bitcoin mining is a positive for the environment.  Sure, it's still a net negative, but making progress.  When you consider the industries that Bitcoin is attempting to replace, there is a chance it ends up being a net positive for the environment.  We just aren't there yet because people will always chase profits over doing what's right.  You can only hope at some point a majority of Bitcoiners are so rich that they prioritize the planet over their pockets.

[coinycoiny]

you can even make the argument that Bitcoin mining is a positive for the environment. 

Like I said, an echo chamber.

[Minor Miner]

I wish they spent money on something more meaningful, not on ads against PoW. Some are fast to attack Bitcoin because they don't like it much, don't understand it, and think they can succeed if they go against it. That's not possible, the consensus to move from PoW to PoS won't be reached.
Climate change is real, but fighting Bitcoin won't stop it or even meaningfully make the problem smaller. There are plenty of other areas where meaningful change is possible and where advocating for change would make more sense.
Also, it would be nice if they did their research to prove that if they succeed, things will actually get better and it won't be that the dirty energy Bitcoin used would immediately get used up by other players, so it won't even make that tiny difference it's supposed to make. And, on the contrary, I've heard interesting arguments that Bitcoin can actually stimulate switch to green energy because it can be what creates demand for it.

If it is really possible to stop climate change by banning bitcoin mining or converting bitcoin to POS however they want, I would agree with them. But it's clear that climate change is caused by a lot of pressure from hundreds of different industries, bitcoin is not the only cause of climate change. Many people think that other industries create use value so emissions are acceptable, but so does bitcoin, it doesn't give them value but it gives value to millions of other people. Therefore, this can be considered a conservative, incorrect argument. This is yet another excuse for bitcoin haters to take advantage of mining to put pressure on bitcoin.

[Coyster]

I'd say it is what it is, whilst a lot of energy is consumed in mining Bitcoin, i don't think it is at the level the government and anti-Bitcoin people are placing it at, you can prolly talk about other things that affect the enviroment, but that wouldn't even be an argument in favor of Bitcoin, as you cannot say that because one thing is destructive, then adding another one isn't bad, but then that takes us back to the initial argument, and that is: Bitcoin isn't even close to being destructive to the enviroment.

Having said that, the Bitcoin network/technology is a net positive for the society, for obvious reasons actually. I'd say there are tons of things to blame for enviromental destruction and Bitcoin would hardly make the list, yes Bitcoin mining uses a lot of energy no doubt, but definitely not at the level of it being enviromentally destructive as some of these propagandas make it seem, and definitely changing from pow to pos is extremely improbable.

[darkangel11]

Greenpeace? Aren't they the idiots who were protesting against oil drilling platforms by sailing around one of such platforms in a boat powered by a diesel engine?
Reminds me of that video where so called animal lovers chained themselves to a conveyor belt in a meat processing plant and then panicked when the belt begun to move choking them...
The world would be better without them.

[franky1]

Greenpeace? Aren't they the idiots who were protesting against oil drilling platforms by sailing around one of such platforms in a boat powered by a diesel engine?

you mean the same people that wanted to take photos of clmate change of how icebergs are being broken.. by sailing in a icebreaker ship.

oh the guys that printed a billion paper leaflets to campaign about deforrestation

[romero121]

Greenpeace? Aren't they the idiots who were protesting against oil drilling platforms by sailing around one of such platforms in a boat powered by a diesel engine?
Reminds me of that video where so called animal lovers chained themselves to a conveyor belt in a meat processing plant and then panicked when the belt begun to move choking them...
The world would be better without them.

This is a way to promote themselves. Majority of the people don't know about this, so called Greenpeace. With a single statement they're known around the world. With a much easier way they've done a promotion. Apart from that, everyone have got their right to reveal their thoughts and the rest is with the majority of the people whether to accept it or not.

[blockman]

Surprised to see that it was Greenpeace. Another agenda to spread and they should even focus more on other things than this. Oh well, they are again into PoW thing that consumes energy. They don't get it, they should campaign against those factories that are spreading their leaked oil in the rivers and not with these machines that can be run with the alternative energy for the miners that own farms of it.

[Poker Player]

Surprised to see that it was Greenpeace. Another agenda to spread and they should even focus more on other things than this. Oh well, they are again into PoW thing that consumes energy. They don't get it, they should campaign against those factories that are spreading their leaked oil in the rivers and not with these machines that can be run with the alternative energy for the miners that own farms of it.

I was surprised too. They could already campaign against the energy expenditure of traditional banking, but no, which makes me think that they are more in cahoots with the powers that be than they like to pretend.

The bad thing about this is that with the climate sensitivity around the world, the message that Bitcoin is a threat to the environment is getting through.

[pooya87]

If the hippies at Greenpeace were so worried about the environment and are as "international" as they claim to be, they should start protesting against all those people who are starting to burn coal or are currently on a cutting spree to destroy the planet by cutting the trees to turn them into firewoods for the winter, all under their nose.

But of course all the toxic gases that burning coal releases in the very air people breathe is not important for Greenpeace but trying to turn bitcoin into a centralized shitcoin by switching to PoS is! Well dream on hippies...

[franky1]

for those that want to learn about risk awareness of change..
read this part i wrote in another part of the forum
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413856.msg60957466#msg60957466

the summary is.
as a legally recognised currency (2014+). the FATF regulators then gained a footing into having some jurisdiction over some bitcoin business stuff.
many celebrated "mainstream" but didnt see the consequence (AML/KYC+change to privacy rights when using financial services)

then when defined as a asset currency. the SEC got a foothold, which then had other stipulations

whilst bitcoin is NOT a commodity. the SEC does not have jurisdictional power to impose production quota's or environmental impact limitations.

however the CFTC does have this power.this caused ethereum to push ethereum over to PoS because yes ethereum was classed as a commodity

bitcoin was not a commodity(yet). thus safe from environmental impact regulations. but due to binance chain, liquid and now LN. bitcoin is slowly falling into the commodity category..

so people need to be aware of the legal and jurisdictional implications of allowing bitcoin to be classified and then regulated as a commodity.

[davis196]

All this BS will basically turn into a meme at this point.
Environmentalists to the Bitcoin miners: USE GREEN ENERGY!
The Bitcoin miners: Starts using more green energy.
Environmentalists to the Bitcoin miners: DON'T USE ENERGY! YOU ARE WASTING EHERGY!
Bitcoin miners: But we are using green energy now.
I don't know how to continue this meme/joke. Maybe someone, who is smarter than me would write a punchline at the end.
In summary: We can't do anything to please the anti-Bitcoiners. Haters gonna hate, it doesn't matter what you do.