in

The BBC is really pushing the anti-bitcoin agenda

BBC News – How Bitcoin‘s vast energy use could burst its bubble
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56215787

TL;DR: Don’t worry you didn’t buy bitcoin. It’s really bad for the environment anyway and will soon crash!



View Reddit by DecentCityView Source

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

46 Comments

  1. You would be mistaken to think that they actually have an agenda. In a more honest light, they simply monitor google analytics and other social media analytics engines to find out what memes are being passed along the communities and then write similar pieces to dive into the momentum and gain their clicks.

    I used to work as a journalist. You can never convince me that any journalist — at least 90% of them — knows anything about what they are writing about. They think one article at a time and never do their research. There’s no time and there is no incentive.

    You can pretty much ignore media. Media is simply good for sell and buy signals in extremely tight and short term time frames.

  2. This article is simply copy produced by an intern journalist student working at a bank, who has been told to follow a certain bias.

    It’s misinformation and half truths with a couple of straw-man arguments thrown in to boot!

    If anything this kind of trash highlights the fact you can smell the fear in traditional banking.

    Don’t understand it, don’t know how to control it and it’s coming for their jobs!

    I am very excited to be a small part in the digital money revolution.

    BTW – they know fiat also has “no intrinsic value” right?

  3. The British Pound was originally defined as 12oz of silver. It has slowly crashed by 99.5% and has destroyed countless colonised countries and still uses more energy than Bitcoin. Fuck the BBC.

  4. Yassine Elmandjra provided 12 points to consider in response to articles such as this one.

    1/ Bitcoin critics continue to assert that mining is wasteful and disproportionately damaging to the environment.

    Contrary to consensus thinking, we believe the impact of bitcoin mining is a net positive for the environment.

    Here’s why:

    2/ First, proof-of-work mining is critical to Bitcoin. In the Bitcoin network, trustworthiness is protected by computation, and mining is what gives Bitcoin its ability to coordinate trust and facilitate the transfer of value without relying on a centralized authority.

    3/ The costliness to produce bitcoin is fundamental to its value.

    Unlike the US dollar, Bitcoin cannot be printed with the stroke of a keyboard.

    Instead, it converts the output from cheap stranded energy sources into something with monetary value.

    4/ Even so, Bitcoin’s energy consumption is trivial compared to legacy financial systems. As measured by electricity costs alone, Bitcoin is much more efficient than traditional banking and gold mining on a global scale.

    5/ Traditional banking consumes 2.34 B GJ/yr and gold mining 500 M GJ/yr, while Bitcoin consumes 184 M GJ/yr. Additionally, Bitcoin mining’s estimated $ cost / GJ expanded is 40X more efficient than that of traditional banking and 10X more efficient than gold mining.

    6/ Another common mistake energy detractors make is to naively extrapolate Bitcoin’s energy consumption to the equivalent CO2 emissions. What matters is the type of energy source being used to generate electricity.

    7/ In reality, renewables account for the largest percentage of bitcoin’s energy mix. In the search for the cheapest form of electricity, miners flock to regions offering a glut of renewable electricity, unlocking stranded energy assets.

    8/ In some instances, Bitcoin mining is even helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by consuming methane that would have been leaked into the atmosphere via flaring.

    9/ “That energy would have been wasted, as is evidenced by the existence of flare stacks. That gas is flared because it can’t be brought to market. Bitcoin miners are incentivized to show up and consume that wasted energy.”

    10/ “If Bitcoin ends up being worth substantially more in the future Bitcoin’s energy expenditure may end up looking rather cheap in the final analysis.”

    11/ Coins only need to be issued once. And it’s better for the planet that they be issued when the coin price was low, and the electricity expended to extract them was commensurately low.

    12/ In summary, Bitcoin does not waste energy.
    It is clear that because Bitcoin’s footprint is so easy to quantify, it is singled out for special treatment.

  5. The BBC are the governments mouth piece. They say what they are told to say, even though they are a public company, that’s the irony. We pay them to spread lies, it’s a great system.

    Ignore BBC fud, they are as out of date and as out of touch as the bankers and their handlers. Truth is ‘their’ control of the monetary system is coming to an end, and it frightens them, Hence the Fud.

  6. I am a bit surprised (as a continental European). I always viewed the Brits as more libertarian than their continental neighbors (which they have been historically – never touched by communism, national socialism, etc.). Doesn’t make sense to have such anti BTC propaganda…

  7. Okay, all the nonsense about the BBC having an “agenda” aside, this article is woefully researched. It relies heavily upon data coming from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF), indeed this appears to be their only source.

    This paragraph caught my eye in particular:

    >The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels.

    Now to be honest, this is the crux of the entire article. If Bitcoin was being powered mainly by renewables then the article and associated FUD is complete crap, right? Yeah. So it’s interesting because I’ve read a study where it was shown that this is indeed the case, whether it be from Chinese hydro, to Icelandic geothermal or Kazakhstani solar, the author of that study claimed an energy mix comprised over over 75% renewables! This, if true, kills the FUD.

    So where are CCAF getting this 2/3 fossil fuels claim from then?

    Er, as it turns out, if you actually read their website – **they’re not claiming this at all**.

    CCAF’s Bitoin data comes from their dedicated project, the [Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index](https://cbeci.org/). You can navigate very easily to the FAQ section, where you will read:

    >**What are Bitcoin’s carbon dioxide emissions?**

    >It is important to understand that energy consumption is not necessarily equivalent to carbon dioxide emissions and environmental pollution. For instance, one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated by a coal-fired power station has a substantially different environmental footprint than one kWh of electricity produced by a solar park.

    >In order to determine Bitcoin’s carbon dioxide emissions, and thus its real environmental footprint, the actual energy mix (i.e. sources of energy used to produce electricity) needs to be examined more closely. While some mining facilities disclose the energy sources used to power their machines, the exact energy mix of the majority of mining farms remains unknown.

    >More recently, studies have shown that a growing share of total electricity consumption originates from renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar, and wind power. However, estimates are varying widely, ranging from approximately 20% 1 of the total energy mix to more than 70%.2

    So *directly from the source*, they admit they do not know, and that potentially it could be over 70%

    Does this kill the FUD? Yes this kills the FUD.

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh.

  8. Good chance they have an altcoiner working for them. I’ve noticed they complain way more about Bitcoins energy usage than normies. If you go on subs like furturology the people posting those energy articles are altcoiners like Senatus(Nano shill). Not people actually concerned about the environment.

  9. Genuine topic for conversation though?

    I’m relatively new to Bitcoin but I’ve been learning lots about it. I believe in it and I see it as the future.

    However, what’s the genuine approach to resolving this huge amount of energy consumption? More renewable power? Better computers and algorithms?

    Burying our heads in the sand is not going to make this go away. It’s in our interests to try and address it. It might actually even increase the value of Bitcoin if it was more environmentally friendly.

    I’d like to hear what ideas people have.

  10. This is worldwide, I’d think. Couple shills started pushing Bitcoin out of frame. My country’s right wing owned media outlets started reporting every anti-bitcoin news they could find. If a famous person says something bad about Bitcoin they report it as facts. Some people really don’t want the average joe to be able to decide over their own finances.

  11. I was honestly JUST about to post this hear and ask why the hate ?

    Whenever Bitcoin strives or gains traction, or even just gets talked about, the BBC or other news outlets just cobble together some doomsday warning article about how BTC is a scam and will pop or “BTC is bad for X reason”

    What is their reason for these articles?

  12. Regarding the point of the linked story, wouldn’t it clear matters up a good deal to state that miners *buy* that much energy with their own money? Instead, it is implied that miners are wasting a limited resource that should instead be used to make orphans’ shoes and surgical tools for Doctors Without Borders — or better still not used at all, thus allowing that margin of oil or coal to remain cleanly underground.

    The real issue is below-market energy prices subsidized by politics. Bitcoin miners naturally go where the prices are lowest. To keep them out, localities that have such pricing would have to moral means-test buyers.

    But that could be awkward, couldn’t it?

  13. If we could play devils advocate for a moment… because it’s good to check our biases: Why is the increasing energy consumption (mostly fossil fuels) not going to be an issue as we scale? Is there any substantive argument against what’s laid out in this article related to this topic? I’m new. Thanks in advance!

  14. Its just clickbait, its safe to ignore the bbc at worst they play to the tune government / bank of england wants (fiat supremacy) at best they’re trying to get attention to justify their existence.

    I’d honestly lean into it and say. Yeah bitcoin uses lots of energy and I’m fine with it, would happily have more nuclear reactors, solar farms, its not like we aren’t going to see mass adoption of solar roofs and the emergence of viable fusion this century. Floating the bitcoin network should be plenty doable not to mention everyone is working to make transactions faster, cheaper and more efficient so that’ll reduce energy consumption anyway, everyone would be happier and have a better share of their paycheck and work in a bitcoin world and I’m happy to pay a price for that.

  15. Odd that I find this posting DIRECTLY BELOW the one that talks about Bitcoin ETF just around the corner!

    MAKE UP YOUR F***ing minds…. either it is trash and thus does not warrant an ETF…. or it is great and does warrant the ETF?!?!?!

    I know what the truth is – do you?

Loading…

0

What do you think?

Forget the foolish shiba, return to monke.

70th Annual Golden Globe Awards - Arrivals

Golden Globes 2021: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler roast James Corden