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

[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.

[1715077875]

1715077875

[1715077875]

1715077875

[1715077875]

1715077875

[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).