[LAUNCHED] Bitcoincleanup.com: a website to stop Greenpeace's bitcoin FUD.

[NotATether]

UPDATE: The site is live at bitcoincleanup.com. Now go out there and spread the word. We gotta make this thing #1 in Google searches for Bitcoin cleanup.

If anyone wants to volunteer to maintain a (free) blog on Github Pages or the like, post here and I will send you a PM.


I've already picked out the domain name (not going to reveal it so that nobody snipes it before I buy it), hosting, e-mail - I have the finances to cover the costs (just a few dozen dollars per year) - I'll just use a Carrd.co template to take care of the fact graphics since I'm not a good web designer.

My questions to the community are about other matters:

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?
2 - Should I start a mailing list similar to what Greenpeace is doing?
3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site? (I've been in the SEO rat race for almost two years - I can tell you that it's impossible to get pageviews unless there are people actually willing to use the site).

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.

[Why not just re-use my blog? Well because nobody's going to link to a blog just for this purpose - it requires a dedicated website without my persona attached to it. Also I don't want to deal with the anticipated DDoS attacks on my servers, hence why I'm hosting with a 3rd-party.]

This has to extend far beyond Bitcointalk too. If anyone can help me get a featured article about the site to Bitcoin Magazine, I will be very grateful. Even better if we can get other people from off the forum talking about this as well

Let's stand together and defend Bitcoin so that future generations can benefit from it.

No spam

Spam will be deleted immediately.

Edit: This includes posts from people who continuously flood this thread with debunked myths about PoW.

[1715092571]

1715092571

[1715092571]

1715092571

[1715092571]

1715092571

[1715092571]

1715092571

[1715092571]

1715092571

[348Judah]

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?

yes and strongly recommended

2 - Should I start a mailing list similar to what Greenpeace is doing?

yes, there's nothing bad in counter campaign against the end doing it wrong

3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site?

much likely, i trust the delivery capacity of the forum members here in related affairs, Hodlonaut is an example, it got a number of support from here with threads, bitcoin will definitely overcome just as many could not claim Satoshi and win, PoS will not overcome PoW.

We stand strong with Bitcoin

[Slow death]

fighting against environmentalist is an endless fight that you will exhaust your strength, those guys will never change, they already have crooked thinking. they have a lot of funds and are in a lot of countries, so even if you create this site to fight them i think it will be an endless fight. The best option is to just watch the crazy things they do, because people know how to think for themselves so they won't believe everything they say. this idiotic idea of them wanting to extinguish bitcoin mining and still paying advertising with nonsense like: "Change the code, not the climate" this will not go anywhere. they'll just be wasting their time

[coolcoinz]

It's a good idea, although will fighting them with their own methods just get them the attention they're seeking? Most people with a brain know Greenpeace is like those charities that claim to be gathering money fro children but the people running them report earnings much above the level of average wages. This shows they aren't doing it to help whoever they're raising money for but mainly themselves. BLM is a good example here, antifa is another one and Greenpeace belongs in the same group. Just read about their exploits and how money has a tendency to disappear in their organization.

If you get the site running I'll send links to all my friends to check it out and get you some traffic. I don't need other people to tell me what I can or cannot use electricity for. I'm paying for it and if I decide that I want to melt snow in my driveway with it or hang lights on every tree in my garden it's going to happen.

[DooMAD]

My questions to the community are about other matters:

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?

I'd suggest holding fire on the counter-petition until we know the community is at least somewhat organised and supporting the cause.  It would need to have a significant number of signatures in order to carry any weight.  Ideally more than their petition has.

[Zlantann]

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?
2 - Should I start a mailing list similar to what Greenpeace is doing?
3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site? (I've been in the SEO rat race for almost two years - I can tell you that it's impossible to get pageviews unless there are people actually willing to use the site).

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 (siege) from governments and trolls alike.

Although One million dollars have been budgeted by Greenpeace for this smear campaign against Bitcoin. And this amount can buy all the publicity and support they need to carry out this task. But Bitcoin needs all the support now, regardless of how small such support might look. Hence this course is worthwhile.

Your plans are can make a very big impact only when you have the support of the Bitcoin community. Devising a means of ascertaining the level of their support (maybe using a poll) might be good. Also, I am suggesting that we consciously monitor the channels Greenpeace would be using to execute these smear campaigns and engage in a counter-campaign.

I read the article: Bitcoin Being Energy Efficient? and it is glaring that Proof of Work is the best option for Bitcoin, for now, hence it is worth defending. Using every channel at our disposal, we can make a big difference if we come together and support this genuine course.

[bittraffic]

Do it!  I'm sure you know how to make people understand howall these works.

Although if the developers will just ignore this Greenpeace POS, it will die down. The question is how far will they go and enforce devs to change the code. They don't understand as Energy is currency. Once POS wins. There will never be a chance for BTC to dominate. It will be like ETH which is now under SEC jurisdiction.

A lot of us will likely share that website you make. SEO will be a problem for google may just de index the site but sharing will make it.

[aoluain]

Yes why not.

I think it will be a mammoth task and will take time and a lot of effort to get momentum,
but that shouldn't be a reason to not do it.

Everyone would need to get behind it and contribute in any way to it. I will as a start link
my own website d3fy.link to it to help with the SEO.

The info to counter Greenpeace's campaign but its not centralised in one go to place
and is hard to find hard facts so this initiative will be very beneficial.

I say go for it.

[NeuroticFish]

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?

I think that you should do this only as a later step.

3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site? (I've been in the SEO rat race for almost two years - I can tell you that it's impossible to get pageviews unless there are people actually willing to use the site).

I have no problem doing a couple of searches for it, visit it now and then, and also post the link a couple of times on Twitter if that helps.
Also if you think it helps I can add an URL into my personal test.

[NotATether]

I got the site ready and hosted it on a temporary domain https://cleanup123456789.carrd.co. My domain's records have not fully updated so I can't host it on the main domain yet. Mailing list does not work yet, for that reason. Please leave your thoughts about it below.

Specifically, I'm at a loss of what I should fill in the "Take action" section.

Besides sending tweets and writing letters to governments, what else can we do?

Any ideas?

[minairia3]

I support this idea and gladly share it on my local bitcoin community or social networking sites. I'm not from the US so I want to know, are these petitions signed by supporters (bitcoinners like us) will they really care about it, will they read it? Bitcoin is still seen as a threat to governments and they are looking to squeeze it, or even not want it to grow any further. If there is a chance to destroy bitcoin, I think they will not let it pass. It can be seen that in governments there are still some voters or politicians who support bitcoin, but that number is very few compared to those who are against bitcoin.

I think this idea will be great if we can attract the support of big miners or all the mining community in the world, I believe it will have a stronger impact.

[franky1]

aswell as asking this community to rally via this topic and your twitter followers. also build up a list of contacts of:
mining pool operators
large asic farms
devs
merchants
celebrities, etc
.. that support bitcoin
 
dont assume the low amount of people that read this topic or your twitter followers will just spam your link to eventually reach the big guys.

dont spam them while the page is evolving.
most people once they have read it.. they dont go back to a site or if they get spammed the link in a couple months later, they assume its the same as last time and dont return.

so first round needs to have an important message and task for them to get involved in rather than a "coming soon" or a TBA of a task that you want people to do later

as for a petition, yes that is something onpoint that makes it worthy of getting involved rather than just spreading social drama between people of finger pointing who to get angry at but has no end purpose

with a petition dont just say "ignore bills that hurt bitcoin" . be precise, informative, matter of fact, actually get to the point.

explain how PoW is a proof that hard work is involved and its a security and value feature. that it actually protects the network unlike other networks that can be attacked at no cost.
show that unlike gold that literally rips the ground open and destroys forests and green land. bitcoin does not touch land. doesnt devastate nature.

add details that miners should be welcomed to renewable regions, not pushed out of the country. the income power plants can get from their excess can further fund more renewable upgrades

etc etc

we would rather see states trying to bid for mining to enter the area much like states bidding to get amazon warehouses to set up in their area's..rather than being pushed out of the country


have template letters so people can copy and paste reasons why their local representative should support bitcoin and the PoW industry

EG a page where people can pick their favoured state, and it shows the representatives at county, state  level, of both congress and senate so they can easily email them

have atleast 5 template letters to let people have a choice of reason.
such as
*explaining the security of PoW vs PoS.
*the value concept of the hard work giving store of value to bitcoin unlike (zero-bottom) pos currencies that are 99.95% speculative
*how PoW funds power plants excess which allows more renewable expansion quicker
*how bitcoin creates jobs
*inspires businesses and new technology

maybe open a github so people can add website suggestions or edit letters/petition wording into a final draft which you can then grab all the idea's from to insert into your site

[NotATether]

have template letters so people can copy and paste reasons why their local representative should support bitcoin and the PoW industry

EG a page where people can pick their favoured state, and it shows the representatives at county, state  level, of both congress and senate so they can easily email them

have atleast 5 template letters to let people have a choice of reason.
such as
*explaining the security of PoW vs PoS.
*the value concept of the hard work giving store of value to bitcoin unlike (zero-bottom) pos currencies that are 99.95% speculative
*how PoW funds power plants excess which allows more renewable expansion quicker
*how bitcoin creates jobs
*inspires businesses and new technology

maybe open a github so people can add website suggestions or edit letters/petition wording into a final draft which you cnan then grab all the idea's from to insert into your site

That's actually a really good idea. People are not known for writing their own template letters anyway.

I'll save the petition for when the mailing list grows large enough, if it's still needed then.

[franky1]

have template letters so people can copy and paste reasons why their local representative should support bitcoin and the PoW industry

EG a page where people can pick their favoured state, and it shows the representatives at county, state  level, of both congress and senate so they can easily email them

have atleast 5 template letters to let people have a choice of reason.
such as
*explaining the security of PoW vs PoS.
*the value concept of the hard work giving store of value to bitcoin unlike (zero-bottom) pos currencies that are 99.95% speculative
*how PoW funds power plants excess which allows more renewable expansion quicker
*how bitcoin creates jobs
*inspires businesses and new technology

maybe open a github so people can add website suggestions or edit letters/petition wording into a final draft which you cnan then grab all the idea's from to insert into your site

That's actually a really good idea. People are not known for writing their own template letters anyway.

I'll save the petition for when the mailing list grows large enough, if it's still needed then.

at the moment the greenpeace stuff is just social distraction..
its a finger point exercise to have any gov decision pointing to blame greenpeace as the instigators. but its actually the gov that are going to make changes that can affect things

things to look at are the actual gov agencies bills and drafts.
everything from the SEC wanting to move crypto regs into the realm of CFTC this month. and how the EPA and the FERC alongside CFTC can then get their fingers into controlling things.

CFTC can change what policies exchanges have to follow.. EPA and FERC can affect miners. and combined these can influence another NY agreement of economic nodes and miners to push for a mandated fork which miners/economic nodes then forced to follow, which then users follow..

which while under SEC the SEC can only deal with the financial currency side.

EG CFTC can and does regulate wheat/beef markets and help with EPA push quota's on farmers to limit food production. and EPA limits what energy, water, fertiliser and waste control farmers have to obide by.. which SEC cant do.
so research into the gov movements more than Greenpeace movements. learn the real attackers to then formulate letters that prevent these.. rather than cries about greenpeace.. in short be a few steps ahead to know the consequences of greenpeace to then aim at preventing the consequences before they manifest

[NotATether]

It is very hard to find honest Twitter personalities in the sea of crap. Yet it is necessary to send people coming to this site, to the correct direction. Because this is an information war we are fighting, and if we don't guide people to other honest personalities, then other people are going to brainwash them to think evil about us.

Can someone give me a list of well-known bitcoin twitter accounts that people should follow? This is going to go on the website.

E.g

Michael Saylor
Hodlonaut
Andreas Antonopoulos

[NeuroticFish]

Some ideas:
1. you may want to make this more like a blog than a "simple" page, the new articles now and then being something that may help attracting more readers (since, as franky1 said, else people may not reallycome back).
2. please - for the final version(s) - check the spelling; one small mistake is at the end:

Write to your MP, senator, or member of Congress explaining the benefits of Proof of Work mining fr the environment.

3. maybe it would help to not "demonize" Greenpeace, hence soften the tone against them / say that they were probably misled

Can someone give me a list of well-known bitcoin twitter accounts that people should follow? This is going to go on the website.

I will add to your list:
Lopp
CZ (but I don't know if he would care)
maybe also Nicolas Dorier

Do newspapers matter?
bitcoin magazine
btc times

[NotATether]

Some ideas:
1. you may want to make this more like a blog than a "simple" page, the new articles now and then being something that may help attracting more readers (since, as franky1 said, else people may not reallycome back).
2. please - for the final version(s) - check the spelling; one small mistake is at the end:

Write to your MP, senator, or member of Congress explaining the benefits of Proof of Work mining fr the environment.

3. maybe it would help to not "demonize" Greenpeace, hence soften the tone against them / say that they were probably misled

Number 2 and 3 is a good point. This is why I did not make it live yet

I think my autocorrect is malfunctioning - I was using Chrome's built-in one on desktop. Time to pull out Grammarly?

Number 1 is something I'm less sure about. As things stand, I am having trouble keeping my own blog up to date, so I'm not sure if this is something I can accomplish along with everything else I'm doing.

I want as much stuff to be in autopilot mode as possible, hence why I'm also not doing a weekly newsletter but a "once in a while" mailing list posts when I feel in the mood to do that stuff. Besides, Carrd does not support multi-page sites anyway, so if I want to make a blog, I'd have to use Wordpress which is 1) slow loading speed, and 2) makes my server vulnerable to DDoS since I can't justify buying an ephemeral server for this as it could also get DDoS'd.

I think my only viable option for multipages would be to host on Github Pages or something of that sort, but somebody will have to volunteer to do that. (The github.io domain can be redirected to a subdomain of mine.)

Can someone give me a list of well-known bitcoin twitter accounts that people should follow? This is going to go on the website.

I will add to your list:
Lopp
CZ (but I don't know if he would care)
maybe also Nicolas Dorier

Do newspapers matter?
bitcoin magazine
btc times

Anything that gives two damns about decentralization matters. So yes.

[Lucius]

I am always in favor of being on the side of the truth, and if that means that we have to dispute everything that the people from Greenpeace will claim in their campaign, then the only question is how to do it in the best possible way. I agree that creating a website is a good start, and that we should use social networks to make as many people as possible aware of the truth when it comes to the completely senseless attack on Bitcoin in the context of environmental protection.

I am ready to provide active support for this idea through my Twitter and link on my website, as well as through avatar/personal text when the @hodlonaut case is decided.

As for famous Twitter accounts, along with all the others already mentioned, only Tim Draper comes to mind at the moment.

[franky1]

Can someone give me a list of well-known bitcoin twitter accounts that people should follow? This is going to go on the website.

E.g

Michael Saylor
Hodlonaut
Andreas Antonopoulos

@bitmainofficial
@coinbase

dont think about social guys also think about the services that support bitcoin
the ones really affected by a change/regulatory push

(edited to shorten my waffle)

its not about publishing twitter names on your website for lemmings to then spam those people.. its for YOU to contact them and get THEM to sign a petition or send a letter to government

green peace is petitioning bitcoin businesses and US gov representatives to push bitcoin to be PoS
their game is not to just point fingers about "waste statistics" the fight is not to counter argue with greenpace about their statistics.. its about fighting their push to change bitcoin, we ned to fight off their invitation to change bitcoin via us needing to get businesses and gov representatives to not accept greenpeaces invitation.

having it where you have common bitcoiners go to your site just to be told to visit bitcoin celebrities about bitcoin stats..  and follow celebrities and spam celebrities with messages about "greenpece wrong".. is just a protest of social drama of an echo chamber of bitcoiners telling bitcoiners why to get angry..in a small endless circle that seems popular and trendy and viral.. but doesnt reach politicians ears/eyeballs

it goes no where politically

but if YOU contact the celebrities (when site is final) where they can easily copy a template letter or organise a lobby group and directions to push a government representative..
and then have celebrities themselves post about the action they done..  linking your site for instructions directed at gov reps

then have everyone link your site.. thats more organised than a echo chamber of a link that just sends them back to another bitcoiners twitter account just to follow/spam inside the community

..
in politics. politicians love the social drama/street protests. because while people are busy in their lil groups shouting at each other that they are angry(street protests).. those people(protesters) are not organising petitions/lobby groups to talk to politicians. so politicians can act ignorant, blank out the noise and just do what they like because they dont receive official petition/demands in their mailbox

the greatest laws didnt change due to protests.. it changes due to petitions and lobby groups

[Leviathan.007]

I can give some advice regarding the website since you are creating the website and the goal is to get some more attention from people and get more people aware of the website you have, I guess the most important part for you is the SEO part and that's technically not that hard to be done if you know an SEO expert otherwise you won't achieve anything even if the website works perfectly, also you should consider a very solid and user-friendly UI and I recommend using a suitable frontend framework to have more attractive UI design. After these two you can start advertising your website on other platforms and even here on your profile.

[aoluain]

Good start NotATether.

There has to be facts and they will have to be verifiable to render whatever Greenpeace
are saying.

I think interviews with miners who are using renewable energy is a must in order to
shed a light on how they power their operations.

The key after all the content is sorted is to get maximum exposure.

[franky1]

do some stats
dont use these numbers as these are just summaries numbers from calculations i done before

average network hashrate speed over a year=192exahash
(note i took each daily exahash and calculated the daily GW and totalled the year amount)

using a 110thash asic of 3.25kwh(last years generation asic) as base asic of calculation
=49.6TH/Y

which beat the diginomics and cambridge estimates which are stupidly saying way way higher rates at 2x-4x

based on google search
"This equalled about 0.85 pounds of CO2 emissions per kWh"
0.85lb=0.3855535kg /KWH

so 49,600,000,000KWH
= 19,123,453,600kg co2 if network was 100% fossil
= 9.56 megatonne if 50% renewable

which beat the diginomics and cambridge estimates which are stupidly saying way way higher rates at 3x-5x

obviously do more accurate math and show calculations. but it is surprising how those cambridge/diginonics sights want to display amounts that are 3-5x higher than basic math anyone can do
use stats that there are newer asics now
where 110thash @3.25kwh
=2.95kwh /100thash
there is
255thash 5.3kwh
=2.07KWH / 100thash

thus can reduce electric use by 30% per thash

[LegendaryK]

do some stats

Their are lies
Their are damn lies,
and Finally their are Statistics.

Really do some math,
Recognize the entire world energy output is not located on a single grid.
Individual grids don't have access to the entire world energy.
Texas only generates less than 1% of the world total energy.
It can't even access power from the East coast grids of the US.
Considering the BTC miners are wanting to increase the energy drain on Texas to act like New York just fell into Dallas.

It is amazing , how utterly clueless btc supporters are about the energy infrastructure of the planet.

Do the real math, and you might realize just how bad /damaging those BTC PoW mining Parasites are.

[NotATether]

So, has anyone decided to host and keep up-to-date an auxiliary blog?

Even a markdown one on Github? I'll personally assist you in setting one up if anybody is interested (its very easy).

EDIT:

No one? In that case, I'll just do it myself. I was trying to avoid having to do extra work to publish this ASAP, but now I'm backed to a corner.

There will be an additional 2-3 day delay while I get the mini-blog ready.

[LegendaryK]

https://decrypt.co/109283/white-house-bitcoin-mining-greener-ban

White House: Bitcoin Mining Must Be Greener—Or US Should Ban It
The White House has said it wants federal agencies and states to make mining cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin more climate-friendly—or else.

Time is short.

[NotATether]

The blog is almost ready, it'll be hosted at blog.bitcoincleanup.com (special thanks to @n0nce for that domain idea). Also cleaned up the anti-greenpeace stuff, made it anti-PoS instead.

And I designed a new (CC0-licensed) logo.

EDIT: we now have a Twitter too! Go follow @BitcoinCleanup

[franky1]

rather then Leg-end forming an opinion from "decrypt"
let look at the white house report.

it identifies 4 questions and comes with some answers according to their teams...

so
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf

1How do digital assets affect energy usage, including grid management and reliability, energy efficiency incentives and standards, and sources of energy supply?
- As of August 2022, published estimates of the total global electricity usage for crypto-assets are between 120 and 240 billion kilowatt-hours per year,
- a range that exceeds the total annual electricity usage of many individual countries, such as Argentina or Australia.
- This is equivalent to 0.4% to 0.9% of annual global electricity usage,
- and is comparable to the annual electricity usage of all conventional (i.e., non-crypto-asset) data centers in the world
- The United States is estimated to host about a third of global crypto-asset
operations, which currently consume about 0.9% to 1.7% of total U.S. electricity usage.
- This range of electricity usage is similar to all home computers or all residential lighting in the United States.
-  Crypto-asset mining is also highly mobile. The U.S. share of global mining from
Bitcoin, the largest crypto-asset, rose from 3.5% in 2020 to 38% today, with U.S. electricity usage for crypto-asset mining, while still relatively small, tripling since January 2021.

so lets deal with some things
120 -240TWH

lets use some very very very outdated hardware which majority was switched out in 2019 to be used on altcoin. (and upgraded to s17 then s19).. . but lets assume the whole bitcoin network is using outdated s9 hardware and also using a constant high hashrate of ATH 230exahash non stop all year(didnt happen but lets go extreme)

14thash for 1.4kwh
230000000 /14 =16,428,571asics of 1.4kwh
23,000,000kwh = 23GWh = 552GW/day = 201TWH/year

so even if the network was using old asics and at a constant ATH hashrate. that still does not reach the 240 top limit

so lets use more reasonable asics of the s19 range of 2020(not using most efficient asic of 2022, to be fair).. which is the 95thash for 3.25 first s19gen

and lets actually work out the real hashrate by adding up all the days and getting the average..
hashrate=192exa for the year
=192000000 / 95 = 2,021,052asics
= 6,568,421kwh= 6.6GWH =157.6GW/day = 57.5THW/year

and thats not even the most efficient asics available in 2021-2022(110-140thash)

so saying 120-240 is an exaggeration by a factor of 2.5x-5x
oh and argentina are 140twh/y and australia are 260.. not 57

trying to suggest that bitcoin uses as much electric as australia,, is a exaggeration by a 4.6x factor
thats like a politician whos wife only gave birth to 1 kid. but the politician wants to boast to his colleagues that his wife had twins TWICE and there is another baby on the way.. its total BS
 
as for trying to say bitcoin uses upto 0.9% of world energy..
but here is the thing
world capacity is at 7.1TWH =  170TWH/d = 62196TWH/year
now lets use their exaggerated 240
240 of 62196 = 0.39%
now lets use their exaggerated 120
120 of 62196 = 0.19%

now lets use a fairer 57
57 of 62196 = 0.092%

so when they say upto 0.9%.. its actually 10 less as a fairer calculation of world usage

if i was to use the most efficient asic of 2022 the 140thash for 3.01kwh
it equals 36.16TWH/y = 0.058% of world energy
meaning this uear can actually get more efficient and use less power

[NotATether]

Alright, everything is ready to whirl except for the legal letters (I just have to write a sample draft), and fill in some more actions - All I have to do now is connect the sites to the domains.

I did not run a spell-check yet - I want to do that after the community thinks the rest of the site is fine. For now the blog is temporarily on bitcoincleanup.github.io.

[franky1]

Alright, everything is ready to whirl except for the legal letters (I just have to write a sample draft), and fill in some more actions - All I have to do now is connect the sites to the domains.

I did not run a spell-check yet - I want to do that after the community thinks the rest of the site is fine. For now the blog is temporarily on bitcoincleanup.github.io.

dont use my wording, but just take the substance/meaning of my next comment as explainer for you t put into your own words

the point being
commodities are MORE regulated. but PoS are transfered to the SEC which is less regulated

SEC cannot tell a cryptocurrency it is using too much electric
the CFTC can..

commodities are raw materials used to create other products
EG wheat = bread
oil=car fuel, plastic
PoS=NFT tokens

all those raw materials have many regulations, even ones about environmental impact

the political idea is to put PoW into commodities regulations and then push all the environmental impact stuff on them to change algorithms  , and only return to being classified as a security aka a asset currency, if they meet some standard.

think about all the regulations farmers have to obide by, such as the environmental stuff about fertiliser and oil drilling into the ground, the living standards of cattle/paultry and disposal of waste etc. commodities have alot more regulations and ability to get really deep into the lives of businesses operating in commodities in comparison to  what securities regulator does

oh and the reason ethereum price is in decline is not due to social drama of media reports. its becasue the cost of creation dropped by atleast 20x since changing to PoS thus the underlying value support dropped by 20x. and they are losing the battle to keep the price at a speculative high

[NotATether]

I have prepared three different letters to governments:

- The US letter (for senators and congresspeople)
- The EU letter (for MPs in Member States - do not use this for UK)
- The UK letter (for MPs in the UK - can also be used for governments of other soverign countries).

The letters are available at https://github.com/bitcoincleanup/bitcoincleanup.github.io/tree/main/assets/blob .

The letters are oriented towards business-minded governmental people with little-to-no knowledge about technology - as such, the amount of technical jargon has been kept to a bare minimum (only Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are referenced).

Please give me your opinions about the letters to see if I wrote everything correctly. All three templates have been spell checked and grammar checked.


I appreciate everyone's opinions who have contributed to this thread so far, but the discussion volume has been underwhelming. For something as serious as this, I expected more people replying to this topic. So if you haven't yet, pleace give your input about this subject.

Alright, everything is ready to whirl except for the legal letters (I just have to write a sample draft), and fill in some more actions - All I have to do now is connect the sites to the domains.

I did not run a spell-check yet - I want to do that after the community thinks the rest of the site is fine. For now the blog is temporarily on bitcoincleanup.github.io.

dont use my wording, but just take the substance/meaning of my next comment as explainer for you t put into your own words

the point being
commodities are MORE regulated. but PoS are transfered to the SEC which is less regulated

SEC cannot tell a cryptocurrency it is using too much electric
the CFTC can..

commodities are raw materials used to create other products
EG wheat = bread
oil=car fuel, plastic
PoS=NFT tokens

all those raw materials have many regulations, even ones about environmental impact

the political idea is to put PoW into commodities regulations and then push all the environmental impact stuff on them to change algorithms  , and only return to being classified as a security aka a asset currency, if they meet some standard.

think about all the regulations farmers have to obide by, such as the environmental stuff about fertiliser and oil drilling into the ground, the living standards of cattle/paultry and disposal of waste etc. commodities have alot more regulations and ability to get really deep into the lives of businesses operating in commodities in comparison to  what securities regulator does

oh and the reason ethereum price is in decline is not due to social drama of media reports. its becasue the cost of creation dropped by atleast 20x since changing to PoS thus the underlying value support dropped by 20x. and they are losing the battle to keep the price at a speculative high

I'll look into that soon.

[franky1]

I have prepared three different letters to governments:

- The US letter (for senators and congresspeople)
- The EU letter (for MPs in Member States - do not use this for UK)
- The UK letter (for MPs in the UK - can also be used for governments of other soverign countries).

The letters are available at https://github.com/bitcoincleanup/bitcoincleanup.github.io/tree/main/assets/blob .

this paragraph
"Proof of Work can solve this problem when electric utilities and the digital asset companies responsible for excessive energy consumption (called "miners" by the industry) enter into a mutual agreement where the miners reduce their electrical consumption during times of peak power generation, in return for a fee paid to them by the utility. In return, the miners
purchase all surplus electricity from the utility during all other periods"

makes power companies the asic farms boss and can have control ramifications

however wording it

Proof of Work can solve this problem when digital currency energy consumers (called "miners" by the industry) enter into a mutual agreement with utility companies to purchase allotments of energy on long term contracts(6mon-2year). this gives responsible predictable power supply and consumption, thus evades the peaks and dips of unpredictable demand.
where the miners can reduce/manage their electrical consumption via efficiency methods of new equipment and business planning, where they can sell some of their allotment at a buyback rate the utility company pays.

using words like "excessive" is saying PoW uses too much.. which means pretty much admitting PoW is bad when saying excessive.
use words like "industry level demand". rather than excessive

and as said at start of post trying to give per companies a responsibility to boss asic farms to turn off at the simple request of a guy in an office.. is not a good footing to offer

[Pmalek]

I am reading the EU sample letter.

Check line 39 where it says: "It also enables the utilities to avoid penalties and fines for burning fossil fields"...
I assume it should be "fossil fuels".

I will check the other letters as well.
Great initiative. I hope you get as much support as possible. I would love to be of help since it concerns all of us. Not sure how though.

[NotATether]

I am reading the EU sample letter.

Check line 39 where it says: "It also enables the utilities to avoid penalties and fines for burning fossil fields"...
I assume it should be "fossil fuels".

Oh shit, I think that escaped Grammarly's sanity detectors.

I will check the other letters as well.

They are largely the same as the EU letter but have US/UK-style addresses and minister titles.

Great initiative. I hope you get as much support as possible. I would love to be of help since it concerns all of us. Not sure how though.

Besides the tweeting, you can tell your friends about this site (once it is moved to the final domain), and tell them to tell their friends about it. We have to make a spider-web of interested users - your friends tell their friends, their friends tell their friends, as well. Powerful connected people will eventually stumble over this site and send out the letters, which is the ultimate goal; to keep regulators away from Proof of Work.

[Pmalek]

I ran the test version of the website through Grammarly Premium. I assume you used the free version because the Premium one suggested plenty of other corrections. I didn't apply all of them like a robot, but I did change the ones I think make sense or might sound better.

Here is the entire page in a quote. Feel free to check and apply the changes you want:

Bitcoin is already using clean energy.
Help stop the legislation that would force a change in Bitcoin to abandon the Proof-of-Work model.

Common myths about Bitcoin's energy use
In the days following the Ethereum Merge, critics have pointed to Bitcoin's energy use as the leading cause of pollution - as you will see, these myths are false.

Myth: Bitcoin uses as much energy as <country>
Televisions, aeroplanes, Christmas lights, and plastic require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used: what is the amount of energy considered excessive to create them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?
According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, devices kept on standby in the United States alone could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half. (a figure that has constantly been decreasing)
   Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly compared to mining gold.
Other human activities (Netflix) produce comparable (Amazon) results (YouTube).

Myth: Proof of Work is more wasteful than Proof of Stake
Proof of Stake (PoS) uses a lot less energy than Proof of Work (PoW). However:
Proof of Stake increases centralization - The top 2 staking pools control almost 50% of the staked coins between them*, increasing the risk of transaction censorship.
Staking participants can't just stop staking with a malicious pool because the pool is likely to have more crypto to offset the loss. This cannot happen in Proof of Work.
It is likely that companies in charge of staking pools might misappropriate funds to collateralize loans. You might lose your crypto to bankruptcy if these loans are defaulted on.
On the contrary, Proof of Work is proven to be censorship-resistant:
Miners can easily prevent 51% attacks by leaving mining pools that grow too large - this has prevented centralization on at least one occasion.
Hashpower is not money, so mining pools cannot misappropriate it for other uses.
Miners can stop their operations any time they like.

*Data correct as of September 20, 2022. The top 5 Ethereum staking pools were: Lido Finance with at least 31% of coins, Coinbase at 14.7% of coins, Kraken at 8.5% of coins, Binance at 6.6% of coins, and staked.us at about 3% of coins. Source


Bitcoin mining has the potential to incentivize other industries to switch to green energy.
Proof of Stake (PoS) uses a lot less energy than Proof of Work (PoW). However:
Bitcoin improves the efficiency of the energy industry. It can help prevent "Renewable Curtailment" and make it profitable to capture gas otherwise destined to be burned in gas flaring, encouraging producers to reduce carbon emissions. Low-carbon energy projects such as hydroelectric, nuclear, or renewables can be made profitable by selling the excess energy produced for the mining of bitcoin.
A considerable part of the energy produced is not used correctly, partly because it is wasted in unprofitable ways, such as dispersion in networks or thermal dispersion in endothermic engines, etc. This is partly because it is produced in places or moments where the energy is unnecessary, e.g., in power plants and off-peak nuclear power plants. Bitcoin can make a huge contribution to this space by efficiently using resources that would otherwise be wasted.
In 2019, rejected energy accounted for over two-thirds of all electricity generation. Bitcoin mining incentivizes the development of more efficient generation processes to generate electricity that is sold to Bitcoin miners at a later date. This ultimately reduces the number of fossil fuels used and subsequently burnt into the atmosphere.
Bitcoin mining can clear the queue of on-hold renewable projects in the United States and other countries by allowing the electric utilities to make back their expenses by selling renewable-powered electricity to miners after project completion.

Why is Proof of Stake bad for Bitcoin at this time?
Bitcoin uses a development system called BIP documents to make protocol changes affecting all Bitcoin users. It is roughly equivalent to the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC document.
Most of the Bitcoin community must agree with a BIP before it gets implemented.
Such an agreement has not been reached for using Proof of Stake in Bitcoin. In fact, a majority of users are opposed to this change because Proof of Stake has not been trialed thoroughly.
History has repeatedly shown that you must fork it with the change and demonstrate its use in real-world conditions to prove that a huge modification is good for Bitcoin. [1] [2] [3]

Greenpeace is attempting to force a change of code into Bitcoin.

Greenpeace and influential people such as Larsen are lobbying the US government to ban Proof of Work.
This action does not have the support of most of the Bitcoin community because nobody has even written a BIP for that.
Bitcoin and its full-node implementation Bitcoin Core have a long history of thoroughly reviewing changes before they are committed and deployed. Attempting to force the hands of developers in reaction to banning Proof of Work is not the solution to external problems not directly caused by Bitcoin and Proof of Work.
We must show them that Proof of Stake is the wrong solution for Bitcoin's energy problem. We must also show all detractors that the correct way to propose a change to the Bitcoin protocol is by writing a BIP, not by making a fuss about it in the media.

Stop Proof-of-Stake Lobbying Now

It's time for all bitcoiners to rise and defend their currency from external threats.
Sign up for this mailing list so that you can be alerted about new developments in this space.
Show your solidarity to Bitcoin, even if it's just a tweet. Share hashtag #EcoFriendlyPoW.
Write to your MP, senator, or member of Congress explaining the benefits of Proof of Work mining for the environment.

Source: https://cleanup123456789.carrd.co

[NotATether]

I ran the test version of the website through Grammarly Premium. I assume you used the free version because the Premium one suggested plenty of other corrections. I didn't apply all of them like a robot, but I did change the ones I think make sense or might sound better.

I actually have the Premium version, I purchased it 1.5 years ago when I was a writer for OWNR Wallet (thanks iTunes gift cards). But no, I haven't ran the website through any kind of checker, only the legal letters. Because as you can imagine, I was paranoid of spelling errors and inaccuracies of intent in them.

Here is the entire page in a quote. Feel free to check and apply the changes you want:

~

I'll check those out - but it will take a while given that it's in unstructured text. A lot of the text was adapted from filliponne's thread of similar characteristic, especially the first few sections.


Another question: Do you guys care about a welcome message in the mailing list? I have the choice between SendinBlue and Mailchimp (and a host of other providers that are the same as or worse than Mailchimp), but MC only lets me have 500 contacts free. SendinBlue gives me unlimited contacts but when I opened a ticket requesting them to enable "Automations" (i.e. sending a message when someone signs up, unsubscribes etc.), they replied with some jargon that "your request was denied, we only give it to accounts that meet certain criteria etc. ", so I can't do a welcome message with that.

I don't have anything particularly important to write in a welcome mail that isn't already on the website.

Given that the mailing list is a low-volume one anyway, what do you guys say?

[franky1]

i know your also trying to be a few steps ahead about having mailing lists and celebrity twitter names so you can keep them uptodate about future campaigns and such..

but for now concentrate on finishing this campaign which is about getting politicians informed about the mis-guided info they may have received from the altcoin brigade.

dont make this campaign about recruiting people that just talk to other bitcoin maximalists about being angry about some coming soon change.. it should be about getting everyone to promote your site where your site guides people into how to teach a politician..
 where the virality of linking your site within the bitcoiner community is the path to getting more people to poke a politician. but only when the poke a politician part is formalised

so get the poke the politician stuff done (the main campaign agenda) then sort out the mailing list/virality spider web of getting your site noticed after.. because there is no point spamming your site if your sites not ready to poke a politician

[n0nce]

I appreciate everyone's opinions who have contributed to this thread so far, but the discussion volume has been underwhelming. For something as serious as this, I expected more people replying to this topic. So if you haven't yet, pleace give your input about this subject.

Honestly, I found everything I've seen great and therefore just distributed merits here and there.
I also already added the link to my webpage; I heard having a lot of backlinks helps with SEO.

Just read through the letters, as well and I've simply got nothing to add right now..

No preference regarding mailing list provider; from what you are saying, it seems only MailChimp fulfills your requirements. On the other hand, I don't feel like a welcome message is necessarily required.

[NotATether]

No preference regarding mailing list provider; from what you are saying, it seems only MailChimp fulfills your requirements. On the other hand, I don't feel like a welcome message is necessarily required.

I don't need welcome messages. I'm just asking if the community wants any of those (they do not, apparently).

The good news is that I can switch email providers by importing/exporting contact lists as CSV files. So it's not a big issue. I will probably stick with Sendinblue and forget about mailing list costs.

I'll just make the blog adjustments franky1 suggested, add a few more call-to-action suggestions, and this site should be on all four cylinders. I even added a Youtube video from All Things Bitcoin that directly refutes the Greenpeace FUD video - both are very close to the top on Youtube search results.

And speaking of FUD, I've linked to https://endthefud.org at the bottom as well (not .com, that's some defunct Ethereum NFT card site). It has a lot of articles refuting practically all of the Bitcoin false claims & criticism.

Let's #EndTheFUD guys

[franky1]

if it is of interest
https://youtu.be/JM1L3Lobdsk?t=114

RIOT asic farm that buys electric from texas grid in 2 year contract allotments. sells electric back to the grid in high electric demand periods

[NotATether]

if it is of interest
https://youtu.be/JM1L3Lobdsk?t=114

RIOT asic farm that buys electric from texas grid in 2 year contract allotments. sells electric back to the grid in high electric demand periods

Yeah, I think All Things Bitcoin talks about that too (The one I embedded onto the site - I just watched it).

[Pmalek]

I actually have the Premium version, I purchased it 1.5 years ago when I was a writer for OWNR Wallet (thanks iTunes gift cards). But no, I haven't ran the website through any kind of checker, only the legal letters. Because as you can imagine, I was paranoid of spelling errors and inaccuracies of intent in them.

Grammarly did pick up a few typos as well. Those are corrected in the quoted part of my previous message, but I didn't single them out in any way.
I don't see the need to have a welcome message if that message will only sum up what was already written on the website.   

[DeathAngel]

It’s really irritating but in reality their attempts at a coup will not work. Any true bitcoiner will totally reject tgeir shitfork. I will gladly accept & dump their forked shitcoin on the market. It’ll be like the fork wars back in the day, they’ll be dumped into irrelevance.

These people just do not get what bitcoin truly is & what it stands for. They can all fork off:)

[NotATether]

Last call! I added a new letterhead that should be used to send emails to big and little personalities respectively. The email can even be sent to Greenpeace themselves Jokes aside, they are arguably the #1 people who should be receiving these "emails of opposition to banning PoW" because it will demonstrate to them that their campaign is failing.

Do you guys have any feedback about the letters and call-to-actions on the front page before I make the site live?


EDIT:

No response at all?

Alright then. Let's start all the engines. Scotty, engage ship to warp 9 speed.

[NotATether]

The website is live at https://bitcoincleanup.com now - fire your emails and tweets!

I would like to thank everyone who provided constructive feedback for the site. And all the environmental trolls, for motivating me to create this monument.

But remember that this was only the first part of the battle. Now, we must strike with all our might at the Proof of Work detractors. Let this website be your banner and rally under it.

[Pmalek]

The website is live at https://bitcoincleanup.com

I am going to use your website in my personal text field. I hope more people can do it if they are not in a signature campaign or are part of one that allows the personal text space to be used for other messages. I am going to try something else, let's see if it works. More precisely, let's see if a particular person agrees and listens to me. 

[NotATether]

The website is live at https://bitcoincleanup.com

I am going to use your website in my personal text field. I hope more people can do it if they are not in a signature campaign or are part of one that allows the personal text space to be used for other messages. I am going to try something else, let's see if it works. More precisely, let's see if a particular person agrees and listens to me.  

I had an hour's reflection on that. I think it's a good idea, and for better results, you should also wear the logo avatar as well, if you're interested in that kind of stuff. Here is an 80x80 image you can use as your profile pic:

Code:

https://i.imgur.com/rgEu9Bh.png

The website logo is copyrighted by myself and is licensed under CC0 (in other words, Creative Commons Universal 1.0).


Can someone with a Reddit account post this website to r/Bitcoin, I tried doing that from a newly-created account and it appears to be hidden from everybody.

[shahzadafzal]

Can someone with a Reddit account post this website to r/Bitcoin, I tried doing that from a newly-created account and it appears to be hidden from everybody.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xo9k3q/defend_proof_of_work_from_green_hulks_a_website/

The website logo is copyrighted by myself and is licensed under CC0 (in other words, Creative Commons Universal 1.0).

I got a question regarding your Creative Commons Universal logo :p

Just in case people haven't heard, my Hulk-smashing Proof of Work website https://bitcoincleanup.com is live now. Spread the word if you want.

Good work NotATether although those who don't want to listen they won't but it worth trying. There are numerous articles and proven publications where it's established bitcoin isn't what mainstream media highlights but of course anything negative brings more attention and more views that is what those hungry dudes want they don’t care about the facts.

For an experiment you can create another website where just show how much energy bitcoin is consuming and compare it with any country like Argentina or post some bogus facts with big numbers like bitcoin consuming hundreds of terra watts per hours and then see the which website is getting more hits :p
 
Anyway excellent work... and I would love to know more about your logo... the greenish look is understood with white bitcoin logo looking neat but what's about this honeycomb mesh? or is it a leaf's photosynthesis cells?




Well it does look like a leaf too :p

[Kakmakr]

I think you are spot on with your predictions about the DDoS attacks, because there are a lot of people and governments with hidden agendas that will certainly do that. 

Do you think a massive amount of views will really affect the Google rankings for it to be on top of the Google searches? We know these large companies are in bed with the governments and they have been exposed for manipulating these stats? (US elections) 

In any way... thank you for driving this effort.... We will support you and forward the Url to everyone in our circle of friends. 

[NotATether]

(I missed your post in the WO thread.)

Anyway excellent work... and I would love to know more about your logo... the greenish look is understood with white bitcoin logo looking neat but what's about this honeycomb mesh? or is it a leaf's photosynthesis cells?

The mesh is supported to make the shape resemble a bunch of pebbles - so there is green, the color of leaves, and the mesh gives it a kind of rocky look. It's supposed to represent environmental friendliness, and I managed to transform the orange bitcoin logo to this using some GIMP filters.

I think it would be better to add any supplementary information as a subdomain or in the Blog section. Otherwise I will have to do SEO all over again. >.<

Do you think a massive amount of views will really affect the Google rankings for it to be on top of the Google searches? We know these large companies are in bed with the governments and they have been exposed for manipulating these stats? (US elections) 

Views do not contribute to Google rankings, it's the links. Especially the links on big websites.

I've been trying to contact CoinTelegraph to do a press release about this (considering that they had them just rolled out an opinion piece about the "Bitcoin vs Netcoin" thread), but I haven't heard back from them yet.

[buwaytress]

In addition to rallying businesses and celebrities, etc that support Bitcoin, I'd also look up academics and scientists, even media, not necessarily to get them to throw their weight behind you (The Bitcoin Policy Institute already does that but they are not as objective as can be desired but can be a place to start) but to provide sound scientific research or push/advocate for such.

P.S GL! I'd offer to host indefinitely, but then I suppose you've got the small costs covered already (I've paid up for decades in advance).

[NotATether]

In addition to rallying businesses and celebrities, etc that support Bitcoin, I'd also look up academics and scientists, even media, not necessarily to get them to throw their weight behind you (The Bitcoin Policy Institute already does that but they are not as objective as can be desired but can be a place to start) but to provide sound scientific research or push/advocate for such.

P.S GL! I'd offer to host indefinitely, but then I suppose you've got the small costs covered already (I've paid up for decades in advance).

Yeah, Carrd hosts the website for me on its own (AWS) servers, so I don't have to worry about DDoS woes among other things thanks anyway.

[LoyceV]

According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index devices kept on standby, in the United States alone, could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half - a figure that has been constantly decreasing.

I got curious how they got to this number, and especially why it's decreasing (is that because Bitcoin uses less energy, or because devices on standby use more?) but I couldn't confirm the 1.5 years from the source link.

Then, on the next slide:

The amount of energy consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the USA alone could ... power the Bitcoin network for 3.6 years (source)

I assume devices on standby are the same as always-on but inactive devices, right? That's a large difference from the previous slide.

[Pmalek]

I had an hour's reflection on that. I think it's a good idea, and for better results, you should also wear the logo avatar as well, if you're interested in that kind of stuff.

I am interested but I can't do it at the moment. The avatar I am wearing now is a paid one. But I would love to come back to this when my current campaign ends.

I also though about suggesting that we could advertise your site the way we discussed it in Forum advertising space for free signature/avatar advertisement and Would you be interested in promoting Bitcoin projects/services for free? But I feel like it would be weird if it came from me in this particular time since I put myself on the list of those interested to take part in free promotions and now I can't since I am part of a different campaign.  

Edit: Good news for you and your site.
My current campaign just ended, so I can begin wearing the Bitcoincleanup.com avatar right now.

[NotATether]

According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index devices kept on standby, in the United States alone, could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half - a figure that has been constantly decreasing.

I got curious how they got to this number, and especially why it's decreasing (is that because Bitcoin uses less energy, or because devices on standby use more?) but I couldn't confirm the 1.5 years from the source link.

Then, on the next slide:

The amount of energy consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the USA alone could ... power the Bitcoin network for 3.6 years (source)

I assume devices on standby are the same as always-on but inactive devices, right? That's a large difference from the previous slide.

I'm pretty sure this statistic existed some years ago on the cbeci website because the image looks very authentic, but it has since been removed, and now the only journalistic reference I could find to this stat was a CoinTelegraph article that was written a few years ago. Wayback Machine to the rescue?

[NotATether]

So... I took off my beloved cap to wear the bitcoincleanup.logo.

I'm getting some signatures designed as well, so if you guys aren't in a sig campaign, you can wear that too if you want, when those are ready.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I feel like you don't fight Greenpeace's FUD exactly. You're justifying why Proof-of-Work is good for both the users and the environment, but you don't debunk their anti-Proof-of-Work arguments.

First off, from your very first myths you're sticking to whataboutism, which is not what I'd classify as a strong argument.

Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly, compared to mining gold.

Other human activities (Netflix) produce comparable (Amazon) results (YouTube).

Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, and plastic all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used; what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?

The process of mining bitcoins is being attacked, because the brainwashing lies on two aspects:

• Bitcoin (as currency) isn't felt to provide essential benefit to the world.
• Switching to Proof-of-Stake is seen as an environmentally friendly alternative with no trade-offs.

On your second paragraph, you explain the drawbacks of Proof-of-Stake, but I think it deserves another title than this:

Myth: Proof of Work is more wasteful than Proof of Stake

Proof-of-Work isn't more wasteful than Proof-of-Stake, because both are wasteful of the same magnitude: Zero. If the energy that is used, is used to secure the network it isn't wasted. I'd prefer having this title:

Myth: Proof-of-Stake comes with no drawbacks

or:

Myth: Proof-of-Stake can replace Proof-of-Work with no tradeoffs

Further differences between these two mechanisms that emphasize on (de)centralization:

Proof-of-Work

 1. Entrance of new voters can't be forbidden. All that's needed is energy and machines that are capable of calculating hashes. Therefore, a miner who once owned 1% of the hash rate, can't make sure he'll maintain his percentage forever.
 2. You can't try to cheat without being punished, because you're spending energy. For example, if a malicious miner, who owns 10% of the hash rate, tries to reverse a transaction 6 blocks deep, and fails, his real cost is equal with the income he could have had if he had chosen to mine bitcoin; he spent energy for nothing.
 3. It's very difficult to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network (e.g., ASICs, GPUs etc.)

Proof-of-Stake

 1. Entrance of new voters is down to the stakers' permission. A staker who owns 1% of the total coins in circulation (presuming the total supply is fixed) can retain the same voting power overtime, if he just chooses to hold them.
 2. You can cheat without being punished. That's known as Nothing-at-stake problem[1].
 3. It's much easier, compared to Proof-of-Work, to steal the units that contribute to the security of the network. For instance, say an attacker hacked an exchange. He'd instantly gain a lot of voting power.

One more core difference is that Proof-of-Stake doesn't give a solution to the Byzantine Generals' problem[2]. That's why it suffers from producing consensus, and that's why it's commonly referred to as "subjective mechanism"[3]; not objective as Proof-of-Work.


  [1]: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-exactly-is-the-nothing-at-stake-problem
  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090309175840/http://www.bitcoin.org/byzantine.html
  [3]: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity

Fourthly, on your fourth paragraph, I'd add that Proof-of-Staked Bitcoin has already been implemented, and failed miserably: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoinpos/. I'm telling you this, because you're saying that a change has to be good, and been demonstrated in real-world conditions. Also, I'd absolutely remove this:

Such an agreement has not been reached for the use of Proof of Stake in Bitcoin. In fact, a majority of users are opposed to this change because Proof of Stake has not been trialed thoroughly.

And replace it with:

Such an agreement has not been reached for the use of Proof of Stake in Bitcoin. In fact, a majority of users are opposed to this change because Proof of Stake is not approved by the Bitcoin community due to the drawbacks that are explained above.

Not being trialed is a weak argument (it's not even a valid argument, it's been trialed to thousands of altcoins, Bitcoin-fork included). We've already debunked Proof-of-Stake from the core. Why not using this instead to convince it's a fundamentally flawed mechanism?


The text from cleanupbitcoin should be a meat and drink for us. Here's some easy to counter-argue parts:

Bitcoin uses an outdated technology called proof-of-work to validate transactions.

As Bitcoin's price surges, so, too does its energy use.

We know Bitcoin stakeholders are incentivized not to change.

We know crypto doesn’t need much energy to work.

[LoyceV]

I've always felt the calculations about Bitcoin's energy consumption ignore the main cause of consuming any energy: the revenue Bitcoin miners earn. Many of the comparisons mention the hashrate per unit of energy, or improved energy efficiency, but none of that really matters. What matters, is how much money miners have to spend. That money goes to:

• hardware
• electricity
• profit

If hardware gets more efficient, miners will buy more of it. If hardware gets more expensive, it's likely the hardware manufacturer uses more energy to produce it. If they make more profit, they (or other miners) buy more hardware to get a bigger piece of the pie. In the end, the main thing deciding energy consumption is how much money they earn. Bitcoin halvings are a major driving force to reduce miner's income, and thus miner's energy consumption. Until now, Bitcoin's value went up faster than the block rewards went down, but long-term, the halvings will lead to less money to spend. By that time, Bitcoin's energy consumption will depend on transaction fees.
And that got me thinking: long-term, converting to dollars doesn't really work because of inflation. So how about comparing Bitcoin miner's revenue to the oil price? I know it's not directly related, and I know miners mainly choose places with low electricity prices, but the oil price is one thing that's more or less the same worldwide.

Would anyone be interested in a graph, since the beginning of Bitcoin, showing the number of oil barrels earned per day from mining Bitcoin?

[dkbit98]

1 - Should I start a counter-petition demanding the White House drop its anti-Proof of Work bills?

It's not a bad idea but I would certainly include someone who is already familiar with US law before starting any partition.
I am sure there are a lot of Bitcoiners who would support this petition, but you need to be smart and think one step ahead.
Making some kind of social media campaign along with bitcointalk campaign would be a great way to get more attention.

2 - Should I start a mailing list similar to what Greenpeace is doing?

I am not a fan of making any mailing list, those can easily get hacked or leaked, but I guess you could tell people to create new separate email for this puprose.

3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site? (I've been in the SEO rat race for almost two years - I can tell you that it's impossible to get pageviews unless there are people actually willing to use the site).

I don't see any harm in doing this, if links are bitcoin related.
Google SEO and algorithm is not that great and I would say it can be bias especially if the green new deal invests a lot of money in opposite direction 

I would suggest that you try translating content of your website to all other major world languages, and I think you could even find few volunteers on this forum.
In other topic I already wrote about updating current logo and making it more different from green altcoin cash.

[NotATether]

Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, and plastic all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used; what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?

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.

Switching to Proof-of-Stake is seen as an environmentally friendly alternative with no trade-offs.

On your second paragraph, you explain the drawbacks of Proof-of-Stake, but I think it deserves another title than this:

Myth: Proof of Work is more wasteful than Proof of Stake

Proof-of-Work isn't more wasteful than Proof-of-Stake, because both are wasteful of the same magnitude: Zero. If the energy that is used, is used to secure the network it isn't wasted. I'd prefer having this title:

Myth: Proof-of-Stake comes with no drawbacks

or:

Myth: Proof-of-Stake can replace Proof-of-Work with no tradeoffs

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"?

Fourthly, on your fourth paragraph, I'd add that Proof-of-Staked Bitcoin has already been implemented, and failed miserably: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoinpos/. I'm telling you this, because you're saying that a change has to be good, and been demonstrated in real-world conditions.

Will do.

Also, I'd absolutely remove this:

Such an agreement has not been reached for the use of Proof of Stake in Bitcoin. In fact, a majority of users are opposed to this change because Proof of Stake has not been trialed thoroughly.

And replace it with:

Such an agreement has not been reached for the use of Proof of Stake in Bitcoin. In fact, a majority of users are opposed to this change because Proof of Stake is not approved by the Bitcoin community due to the drawbacks that are explained above.

Not being trialed is a weak argument (it's not even a valid argument, it's been trialed to thousands of altcoins, Bitcoin-fork included). We've already debunked Proof-of-Stake from the core. Why not using this instead to convince it's a fundamentally flawed mechanism?

Will do as well.

The text from cleanupbitcoin should be a meat and drink for us. Here's some easy to counter-argue parts:

Bitcoin uses an outdated technology called proof-of-work to validate transactions.

As Bitcoin's price surges, so, too does its energy use.

We know Bitcoin stakeholders are incentivized not to change.

We know crypto doesn’t need much energy to work.

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.

[n0nce]

I've always felt the calculations about Bitcoin's energy consumption ignore the main cause of consuming any energy: the revenue Bitcoin miners earn.

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.

Would anyone be interested in a graph, since the beginning of Bitcoin, showing the number of oil barrels earned per day from mining Bitcoin?

Sounds good to me!

3 - Will people link to this site so that it quickly ranks on Google? In other words, will people actually use the site? (I've been in the SEO rat race for almost two years - I can tell you that it's impossible to get pageviews unless there are people actually willing to use the site).

Premium side-bar spot on my website already!

[NotATether]

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).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, and plastic all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used; what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?

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

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?"

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

[Pmalek]

@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.

[NeuroticFish]

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.

The University of Cambridge currently reports that the Bitcoin network currently consumes 94 terawatt hours (TWh) per year. To put this into context, all of the refrigerators in the United States alone consume more than the entire BTC network at 104 TWh per year.

Furthermore, transmission and distribution electricity losses in the U.S. alone are 206 TWh per year, which could power the Bitcoin network 2.2 times over. Cambridge also reports that the Bitcoin network power demand has decreased by 28% since mid-June. This is likely due to miner capitulations during the bear market and more efficient mining hardware being adopted.

[LoyceV]

Would anyone be interested in a graph, since the beginning of Bitcoin, showing the number of oil barrels earned per day from mining Bitcoin?

Sounds good to me!

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.

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.

The University of Cambridge currently reports that the Bitcoin network currently consumes 94 terawatt hours (TWh) per year. To put this into context, all of the refrigerators in the United States alone consume more than the entire BTC network at 104 TWh per year.

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.

Furthermore, transmission and distribution electricity losses in the U.S. alone are 206 TWh per year, which could power the Bitcoin network 2.2 times over.

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.

[NotATether]

@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.

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.

[n0nce]

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.

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.

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..

Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security:

Because of all the arguments above, we can safely conclude that this threat of an attacker building up a fork from arbitrarily long range is unfortunately fundamental, and in all non-degenerate implementations the issue is fatal to a proof of stake algorithm’s success in the proof of work security model. However, we can get around this fundamental barrier with a slight, but nevertheless fundamental, change in the security model.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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

[n0nce]

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

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:

If a chain gets 51% attacked, the community will likely respond by changing the PoW algorithm and your ASIC will lose its value.

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?

[NeuroticFish]

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).
[~snip~]
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.

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 <insert country name here>'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).

[NotATether]

@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

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

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.

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

Let me see.

There is no correlation between Bitcoin price and its energy use

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.

[franky1]

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

[n0nce]

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.

Yes, however: Bitcoin mining incentivizes for energy efficiency more than gold mining does. Besides technological efficiency, mining bitcoins incentivizes transition to 100% renewable energy.

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.

For instance, excess in use of wind power can be used instead of being wasted

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.

There is no correlation between Bitcoin price and its energy use

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.

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.

lets educate the regulators more so than the vegans greenpeace

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

Write to your MP, senator, or member of Congress explaining the benefits of Proof of Work mining for the environment. Here are some letter templates you can fill in.

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

Greenpeace and other environment watchdogs are lobbying the US government to ban Proof of Work.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

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.

[NotATether]

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

Greenpeace and other environment watchdogs are lobbying the US government to ban Proof of Work.

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.

[n0nce]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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

But inevitable to happen, again if the price skyrocketed. As a great economist once said:

But, there's a fundamental economic law which has never been contradicted to the best of my knowledge, and that is, if you pay more for something, there will tend to me more of that something available.

Who's ironically questioned by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, as this law doesn't apply in bitcoins due to difficulty adjustments. 
But it does apply in ASICs and everything else!

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?

[n0nce]

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?

I mean for instance people who flare gas from oil production for example (larger scale) and people who pay flat rate for electricity (smaller scale), like in some office buildings.
In general, there are ASIC buyers at almost any Bitcoin exchange rate, but the production is still limited.

[Sebas.tian]

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.

[NotATether]

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.

[LoyceV]

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.

[n0nce]

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.

Exactly! 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.

[LoyceV]

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.

[buwaytress]

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.

[NotATether]

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.

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?])

[coolcoinz]

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'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.

[NotATether]

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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Many kudos to Ali Sherief NotATether for the time spent, as well!   

[LoyceV]

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!
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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

[NotATether]

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.

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!  

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

[NotATether]

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.

[n0nce]

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.

[Rizzrack]

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 ?

[NotATether]

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.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

I'm not going to agree to this, despite of their good intentions. Why is this needed?

Our app requires read and write permissions from Twitter to function.

[tadamichi]

It’s funny and sad that they’re using an already debunked¹, flawed and paywalled-link² paper as „Fact“ Nr. 2. And how it’s blindly cited again and again over 100 times by other publications.

¹ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335457532_Could_Bitcoin_Emissions_Push_Global_Warming_Above_2_C
² https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
Can be accessed here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328581842_Bitcoin_emissions_alone_could_push_global_warming_above_2C

To debunk this bs again(already been done by Dittmar and Praktiknjo, 2019) and not let them get away with manipulative unscientific lies this easily - we first need to look at the methodology used, described on the last page:

Amount of CO2e produced by Bitcoin usage.
[…]
To assess the carbon footprint of the global Bitcoin Network, using as reference the year 2017, we used the following approach.

We started by compiling a list of current hardware suitable for Bitcoin and their energy efficiencies (hashes per electricity consumed, Supplementary Table 1). To each block mined in 2017 (data from https://blocktrail.com), we assigned a random hardware from Supplementary Table 1 and multiplied the number of hashes required to solve the block by the energy efficiency of the random hardware; this returned the amount of electricity consumed to solve the given block.

To estimate Bitcoin electricity consumption in 2017, Mora et al. assume that each Bitcoin block was randomly mined on hardware included in a self-compiled list of 62 devices. As this list contains many old devices with high energy intensities, the resulting average hardware energy intensity and electricity consumption of Bitcoin mining are approximately ten times higher than other estimates (see the Supplementary Information).

So they basically used an outdated list of hardware³, which already resulted in an completely inaccurate estimation of electricity consumption at the time of the paper. And then tried to estimate electricity consumption up until 2100 based on 2017 hardware. Totally ignoring basics about hardware development, scientific methodologies and common sense. Any output coming from this model can already only result wrongly with exaggerated estimates and were just a few lines in.

³ https://github.com/Camilo-Mora/Bitcoin/blob/master/Randi_TableS1.csv

But lets continue, because it doesnt stop here:

Projected usage and carbon emissions from Bitcoin.

[…]
We studied the carbon emissions of Bitcoin if it follows the adoption trends of other broadly used technologies.
[…]
The first year of usage for each technology was set to one, to allow comparison of trends among technologies (narrow grey lines in Fig. 1b). For each year, we calculated the average and lower and upper quantiles of per cent population using all technologies and applied a logistic model to such trends (the red line and red shading in Fig. 1b). The projected trends of technology usage adoption were used to estimate likely Bitcoin usage assuming a global total of ~314.2 billion cashless transactions. We used only cashless transactions that are likely to occur in places where infrastructure is already in place for the usage of Bitcoin as a reference (for example, we do not assume that Bitcoin will replace transactions using fiat currency). The CO2e emissions of projected Bitcoin usage were estimated using the CO2e emissions for Bitcoin transactions in 2017 as a reference. We randomly sampled blocks mined in 2017 until their total number of transactions were equal to the projected number of transactions, then we added the CO2e emissions from computing such randomly selected blocks. The approach was repeated 1,000 times.

… we believe that the analysis of Mora et al. is flawed because their methodology ignores fundamental constraints imposed by the transaction-processing capacity of the Bitcoin network.

The diffusion scenarios presented by Mora et al. for Bitcoin transactions eventually assume ~314.2 billion Bitcoin-related cashless transactions per year. The corresponding throughput of roughly ~10,000 transactions per second would be at least two orders of magnitude higher than Bitcoins current transaction limits.
[…]
Mora et al. neither mention Bitcoin's transaction limit nor outline how it will be resolved to make their projection plausible. Instead, the applied methodology circumvents the scalability problem by implicitly reparameterizing the Bitcoin protocol to decrease the block interval and increase the number of blocks until the resulting transactions match the number of projected transactions. As the authors sample blocks from their base-year estimates, results are equal to those obtained from scaling electricity consumption in 2017 using projected transactions. Transaction growth is implicitly the sole driver for the electricity growth scenarios presented by Mora et al. However, neither in a reparameterized Bitcoin protocol, nor in the current protocol, is electricity consumption proportional to the transaction rate. Instead, Bitcoins electricity consumption is exclusively proportional to the hashrate, which is the computational capacity of the Bitcoin network. Hashrate growth, in turn, is driven by complex and mutually dependent relationships between mining rewards, transaction fees, hardware energy efficiency, electricity prices and the Bitcoin market price. Increases in throughput capacity, such as with SegWit, translate to a proportional decrease in electricity consumption per transaction, as the electricity consumption of blocks does not scale with the transaction rate.

They assumed ~314.2 billion yearly Bitcoin transactions and not even mentioning a block size limit anywhere. And then modeling future electricity consumption solely based on a transaction rate that cant even happen in practice. Basically basing the whole model on another protocol that doesnt even exist in reality.

This passed peer review, academia, one of the worlds biggest scientific journals and an army of journalists.

Its getting more and more cringe to read this paper, but theres also this:

In a recent commentary, Mora et al.' hypothesize that cumulative GHG emissions of Bitcoin alone could amount to ~231.4GtC within the next 16yr (on the basis of their median scenario), pushing global warming above 2°C. To put these numbers in context, the carbon budget of ~231.4GtC is equivalent to ~63 yr of emissions from global power generation at the rate observed in 2017 (that is, ~3.7 GtC). Bitcoin mining is undoubtedly electricity intensive. However, the electricity demand scenarios calculated by Mora et al. seem unlikely, as Bitcoin-related emissions would entail a tripling of global electricity generation within the next five years (see Supplement). We regard infrastructure bottlenecks and soaring electricity prices as barriers to such growth levels. For example, global electric power capacity increased by only ~ 17% over the past five years.

Spoiler alert, electricity generation didnt triple from 2017-2022(so the model is already unusable again by another factor) and idk if its worth it to go on when the whole paper has already been debunked long ago.


This is the state of science, journalism, activism and millions of marketing budget in 2022. Its sad, but i think we can also use the opportunity to debunk their arguments directly. If thats all they got.

[NotATether]

[...]

I'm not going to agree to this, despite of their good intentions. Why is this needed?

Our app requires read and write permissions from Twitter to function.

I am not quite sure, but it says on the front page that this thing can be self-hosted somehow to make it "run without trust" - they provide the source code anyway so you'd easily be able to verify this.

[BlackHatCoiner]

And how it’s blindly cited again and again over 100 times by other publications.

Nice catch. It's just another indication of their weak and disappointing tactic. Using already debunked papers and arguments to justify their movement. Pathetic.

For what's worth, energy spent per transaction, as I've already said, is a pointless and misunderstood measure. A median on-chain transaction costs essentially zero energy to be created, essentially zero energy to be signed it, and takes very little storage to save it in hard drives across the world. The energy spent by the process of including this transaction, along with many others, into a block should not be confused with the energy that was taken to make this transaction. The energy that is spent in the Bitcoin network, is primarily used to protect the network. Once that is done, transactions can be confirmed. There might as well be no unconfirmed transactions. Just energy spent for network protection.

Furthermore, one on-chain transaction doesn't equate with one transaction. Nearly infinite transactions can be made with just one on-chain transaction, and two computers connected within a payment channel. Again, this projects on how pointless it is to measure the energy that is potentially spent for one Bitcoin transaction.

This is the state of science, journalism, activism and millions of marketing budget in 2022. Its sad, but i think we can also use the opportunity to debunk their arguments directly. If thats all they got.

It's unfair, I know. But their 5 million dollars are going to end sometime. Until then, we debunk.

[NotATether]

Fun fact: The man whose funding all this duplicity is the former Ripple Labs CEO.

This is the company that makes the altcoin XRP.

In case you didn't know, XRP's proof of consensus is not using PoW or PoS, it's using some kinda "proof of bank" - which I call because its using servers owned by several banks to keep track of the blockchain and only those servers are allowed to contribute blocks.

A cryptocurrency mogul is funding an environment org to destroy Bitcoin (proof of work).

Let that sink in your head.

What hypocrisy, isn't it?

It makes me believe that he has something to gain by screwing around with Proof of Work - at this point its all speculation (because I don't know whether he still owns Ripple stock), but perhaps Ripple has some profit to gain from this kind of switch.

You guys know what to do. Send his campaign funds to a black hole and support bitcoincleanup.com. Medium seems to be a good grassroots vector for that, from my experimenting.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In case you didn't know, XRP's proof of consensus is not using PoW or PoS, it's using some kinda "proof of bank"

There's no proof of bank. There are only two mechanisms. Proof-of-Work, and fiat.  

A cryptocurrency mogul is funding an environment org to destroy Bitcoin (proof of work).

At this point, I'm going to argue that Ripple, XRP, or whatever the hell it's named, is a cryptocurrency. Usage of cryptography doesn't make electronic money cryptocurrency. Consensus, and monetary policy do. Cryptocurrencies that depend on a leading team to operate are not decentralized, immutable. They're just fiat.

[NeuroticFish]

In case you didn't know, XRP's proof of consensus is not using PoW or PoS, it's using some kinda "proof of bank"

Well, the latest CSW trial has at least shown that, with enough money and persuasion, one can get plenty of people lie for him (knowingly or not, that doesn't matter).
Hence proof of bank is by far inferior to proof of work. But there's nothing new in this, isn't it?

A cryptocurrency mogul is funding an environment org to destroy Bitcoin (proof of work).

Let that sink in your head.

What hypocrisy, isn't it?

How many altcoins are scams? Plenty. What makes this "mogul" better than the shitcoin creators that run with the money? The fact he's staying for more?
Most altcoin creators don't care about bitcoin, or, if they care, all they care is to get some of its "market share".

Unfair competition, by any means, in this case even funding Greenpeace for a false narrative is just one more facet of the "game". Ripple cannot lose anything, it already have its "reputation" amongst bitcoiners. They can win by getting Bitcoin down or they can lose, but the loss will only make Greenpeace look bad, not them. So pretty much a win-win situation, all done with some pocket money.

From what I've read (didn't double check though) there are (former?) Greenpeace members who understood the truth, but I fear we need more than one or just a few. All this crap has the potential to do worse than only hurt bitcoin (as if that wouldn't be enough), it'll make Greenpeace lose its already diminished credibility.

[NotATether]

For those of you who don't know, I launched an alt of Bitcoin Core to "Change the Code" to use Proof of Stake, solely because Greenpeace and co. were too lazy to do so  

Yes, all I did was change constants, but that's what the commit messages say FTW!

So next time someone tells you about ChangeTheCode, just send them to: https://github.com/bitcoincleanup/bitcoin and tell them to run a PoS node.  

[NotATether]

Soon I will remove the mailing list. Nobody uses it anyway, and I haven't sent a single message from it. I think that would be better for everyone, and I was already advised to do this. Just a heads up.

There might also be a few minor wording changes, but everything else will stay more or less the same.

[LegendaryK]

Soon I will remove the mailing list. Nobody uses it anyway, and I haven't sent a single message from it. I think that would be better for everyone, and I was already advised to do this. Just a heads up.

There might also be a few minor wording changes, but everything else will stay more or less the same.

You might want to monitor your traffic bandwidth to see if you are getting enough hits to justify wasting your money.  

FYI:
Google search Bitcoincleanup.com
and the 1st site that pops up is https://cleanupbitcoin.com/
Funny enough your site is not even listed.
So you might want to get donations to pay google, if you expect your site to hold any water. 

[LoyceV]

Google search Bitcoincleanup.com
and the 1st site that pops up is https://cleanupbitcoin.I'MNOTBACKLINGKINGTHIS.com/
Funny enough your site is not even listed.

I know your feedback says you're a POS-troll, and that seems to be the case here.
Google indexes and shows Bitcoincleanup.com just fine:

[aoluain]

Fun fact: The man whose funding all this duplicity is the former Ripple Labs CEO.

This is the company that makes the altcoin XRP.

In case you didn't know, XRP's proof of consensus is not using PoW or PoS, it's using some kinda "proof of bank" - which I call because its using servers owned by several banks to keep track of the blockchain and only those servers are allowed to contribute blocks.

A cryptocurrency mogul is funding an environment org to destroy Bitcoin (proof of work).

Let that sink in your head.

What hypocrisy, isn't it?

It makes me believe that he has something to gain by screwing around with Proof of Work - at this point its all speculation (because I don't know whether he still owns Ripple stock), but perhaps Ripple has some profit to gain from this kind of switch.

You guys know what to do. Send his campaign funds to a black hole and support bitcoincleanup.com. Medium seems to be a good grassroots vector for that, from my experimenting.

Funny that, a "cryptocurrency" who is in bed with the FIAT financial system, Bitcoin is still
seen as the thread - they are still worried.

In case you didn't know, XRP's proof of consensus is not using PoW or PoS, it's using some kinda "proof of bank"

How many altcoins are scams? Plenty. What makes this "mogul" better than the shitcoin creators that run with the money? The fact he's staying for more?
Most altcoin creators don't care about bitcoin, or, if they care, all they care is to get some of its "market share".

Unfair competition, by any means, in this case even funding Greenpeace for a false narrative is just one more facet of the "game". Ripple cannot lose anything, it already have its "reputation" amongst bitcoiners. They can win by getting Bitcoin down or they can lose, but the loss will only make Greenpeace look bad, not them. So pretty much a win-win situation, all done with some pocket money.

From what I've read (didn't double check though) there are (former?) Greenpeace members who understood the truth, but I fear we need more than one or just a few. All this crap has the potential to do worse than only hurt bitcoin (as if that wouldn't be enough), it'll make Greenpeace lose its already diminished credibility.

I used to own some Ripple years ago but got rid of it when I realised that they were closely
tied up with the banks.

Wouldn't that be some coup for Bitcoincleanup to have those Greenpeace members
willing to share their thoughts about Greenpeace's attack of Bitcoin

[NotATether]

So you might want to get donations to pay google, if you expect your site to hold any water. 

Working on that - trying to get big-DA crypto websites to do-follow link to my site.

Yes, my site is indexed by Google, it's just has too low of a DA to complete with all the bullshit that's on the first page.

BitcoinCleanup has a DA of 8 and 22 link-back websites, according to Ahrefs

cleanupbitcoin has a DA of 41 and 4.5K link-back websites

^-- nearly all of those link-back websites are news dispatches from May or September.

So it sucks, unless I kick some news reporting sites' collective ass and make them cover my story, things are going to stay like this for a while.

No, it does not mean I'm wasting my time (besides, who reads old news stories anyway?)

[LegendaryK]

Google search Bitcoincleanup.com
and the 1st site that pops up is https://cleanupbitcoin.I'MNOTBACKLINGKINGTHIS.com/
Funny enough your site is not even listed.

I know your feedback says you're a POS-troll, and that seems to be the case here.
Google indexes and shows Bitcoincleanup.com just fine:

Nope,

on Google.com
when I search Bitcoincleanup.com
Showing results for bitcoin cleanup
With the results I said.

There is a link below the top , that says Search instead for bitcoincleanup.com
now if I click that link I get the results your image showed.

But the default was Showing results for bitcoin cleanup

Seems to be a game afoot at Google Search.  

[NotATether]

But the default was Showing results for bitcoin cleanup

Google's algorithm checks the first few results for slightly different terms and suggest those if the terms you type yield results in the front page with low domain authority.

[NotATether]

Soon I will remove the mailing list. Nobody uses it anyway, and I haven't sent a single message from it. I think that would be better for everyone, and I was already advised to do this. Just a heads up.

There might also be a few minor wording changes, but everything else will stay more or less the same.

As I promised, these adjustments have been implemented.

And the social media share image has been updated to show an actual Hulk.

[NotATether]

I am thinking about how I can put the roughly $100 in donations in advertising.

MellowAds directly sells ad space for bitcoins, but the battle is currently on Twitter, so let's keep it there.

Maybe I could buy some Twitter ads with a prepaid $100 card if they allow me to do that... I mean why wouldn't they? Elon's Twitter is desperate for advertisement money that they will let practically any advertiser in at this point.

[NotATether]

Another warrior has joined in the fight against GreenPeace and Co.: Meet Bitcoin Reserve.

I'll be happy to collaborate with them during the coming weeks.

[NotATether]

BitcoinCleanup is now in the top 5 Google search results for "cleanup bitcoin"! (5th place - at least for me - in some places in the world it is still on page 2).

This is massive work guys. Let's keep up the momentum.  

That forum factoid slot is really helping, but I could use some banners on other prominent websites as well.

[Kakmakr]

I am 100% behind an initiative like this, because Greenpeace is sending out the wrong message and they ignore their own contribution to green house gasses and environmental pollution. (Example : Printing 1000's of pamphlets in an age where the Internet are used) 

You are absolutely targeting the correct audience to launch an initiative like this, because bitcointalk.org has a strong network of Bitcoin supporters.. that will easily debunk this whole PoW myth.

You should also get a team to research a counter argument to highlight the combined affect that the Banking and other financial industries has on energy use and environmental pollution. (Starting with how much damage mining does to gather metals for coins and also paper and plastic for cash)

[Odusko]

Soon I will remove the mailing list. Nobody uses it anyway, and I haven't sent a single message from it. I think that would be better for everyone, and I was already advised to do this. Just a heads up.

There might also be a few minor wording changes, but everything else will stay more or less the same.

Hey, NotATether thank you for sharing that and feel so good to see the constant push for Bitcoin clean energy advocacy and development, I will soon be putting up my solar inverter in my mining farm which is still in the developmental stage.
In the next couple of week, I may try the new nodes to see how that fit in any way still a nob in Bitcoin technicality but I am sure of going 100% off electricity before the lunch of the mining farm.

You might want to monitor your traffic bandwidth to see if you are getting enough hits to justify wasting your money.  

FYI:
Google search Bitcoincleanup.com
and the 1st site that pops up is https://cleanupbitcoin.com/
Funny enough your site is not even listed.
So you might want to get donations to pay Google if you expect your site to hold any water. 

You may have to take a look again on google to see what result pop up on the list, we have started discussions and promotion over the last couple of months and that have spread the message on bitcoin clean energy, you may have to take a look at the thread I created some time ago to support the development.

I am attracted to the study of Bitcoin energy usage and how Bitcoin clean-up energy has reduced Bitcoin energy usage and helped to improve the entire proof of work algorithm, and how to debunk the false claims from the sponsorers of proof of stake as a replacement to proof of work.
Even though, proof of stake have a high-security disadvantage that makes room for more centralization of the networks aimed at eliminating mining in the networks and replacing it with stakes this allows those with the highest stakes to control the network.
I recommend this site for any newbies looking for a place to build good knowledge about Bitcoin and how the entire network works, I spent a lot of time on the site and I read a lot of articles that contain a wide range of different important topics on Bitcoin clean energy usage and other topics as it relates to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
I am glad to have found this charity campaign that will help to push out quality information to the general public, that will discredit the falsehood being peddled around the cryptocurrency community.
Read a whitepaper on bitcoin green energy projects.

https://bitcoin.energy

You can take a look at the campaign thread here!

BitcoinCleanup.com is a nonprofit website that debunks myths about Bitcoin's energy use and spreads information about Proof of Work.

This is a free campaign; you do not get paid for wearing these materials. You should wear them to help the cause.

@NotATether am glad to see you bringing this campaign here.