Carl Jung once said “Loneliness does not come from having no people around you, but from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to you" That's something I've been working to resolve for a while now *Link in comments, if you're keen to know more

Thanks EU for the free Bitcoin marketing 🙏

BREAKING: Cartwright, a multi-billion dollar UK pension fund, just announced a 3% Bitcoin allocation As a percentage, this is 30x higher than the Wisconsin Pension fund's allocation, and the largest allocation of any Sovereign Fund in the world so far corporate-adviser.com/cartwr…

While not investment advice, this is my opinion as a fund manager on the ESG case for Bitcoin after 2 months due diligence. If you’re a manager of fund where #bitcoin is an investment candidate: failure to consider #BTC in the mix is gross negligence to your ESG obligations

Wow, what a throwback. Did you wake up this morning and think it was 2021? Bill, in case you didn't notice, the media has largely stopped reporting on this misinformation source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/180824… Why? Largely because 10 of the last 11 peer review journals show Bitcoin has positive environmental externalities, which is in agreement with what grid operators, battery engineers, solar and wind generators, and methane mitigation specialists have also observed. source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/183840… In the meantime, Bitcoin now uses 56.72% sustainable energy. source: woocharts.com/esg-bitcoin-mi… You can find out all you need to here, next time you feel the impulse to simultaneously embarrass yourself publicly while misinforming people. docs.google.com/document/d/1…

3 characteristics of a ponzi

The report is up Bitcoin's major power source is now HYDRO (23% of all power) Fossil fuel sources have been decreasing at a combined 6.2% per year since Jan 2020 Methodology and full report: batcoinz.com/bitcoin-by-ener…

Posted without comment

0/17 An Open letter to Greenpeace about #BTC and #proofofwork Dear @greenpeace ...

Awareness Test Would you trust - a Coke report on why Coke's healthier than fruit juice? - an Exxon report on why oil's better for planet than solar? - a Central Bank report on why Central Bank Digital Currencies are better for you and the planet than #Bitcoin?

$500M financing of vented methane $BTC mining - makes the entire #BTC network carbon negative - removes 36M tonnes of CO2-e per year - is equal to planting 2.5B trees - further decentralises the Bitcoin network - ends environmental FUD

Here's 2 quick reasons why we should have zero-trust in the NYTimes article on Bitcoin. First have a look at the table they compiled on the top 6 miners (the full table is much longer) I have the actual data from these miners (and the others in their table) compiled over an 8 month period. The NYTimes article overstates actual fossil fuel use by the following levels - using special accounting rules reserved only for Bitcoin miners it would seem to justify the overstatement: Riot: overstated by 82.5% Atlas: overstated by 32.8% Cipher Mining: overstated by 74.9% US Bitcoin Corp: overstated by 74.9% Rhodium: overstated by 89.9% Bitdeer overstated by 82.5% The emissions levels are also overstated on average by 81.7% Also, ample evidence of cherrypicking to support their thesis by NYTimes. for example: There are now 26 Miners in US&Canada using 90%+ sustainable energy (and growing rapidly). They are: DPO, Terawulf, Bitfarms, Gryphon Mining, Soluna, Hive, Cleanspark, Iris, DMOBlockchain, Sato, Cowa, Blockfusion, Hut8, Marathon, Cumulus, Ocean Falls + a further 8 using emission-negative mining which I document here batcoinz.com/quantifying-the… Cherry-picking evidence 1: NYTimes only focused on 2 of these 26 miners (Cleanspark and Terawulf) Cherry-picking evidence 2: Then within these two, they only focused on (you guessed it) their least renewable-energy backed site(s), neglecting the sites that were predominantly renewable-energy based. This is inception-like cherry-picking: cherry-picking within cherry-picking ! Their omission of data was not accidental So in summary - we have evidence of significantly overstated real percentages of fossil fuel emissions, and using overwhelmingly incomplete datasets to support a thesis. The article is full of such transgressions of genuine objective reporting. But I'll stick to these data-transgressions and leave the rest for others to pick apart.

This is how we flatten it

If you've ever run a retail store, you know what this means. Years ago my wife and I owned a juicebar. The one expense we resented was credit card fees, but we had no alternative. That 1.5-3% fee could be 10% of profit. Thank you @square. Gamechanging for small business owners

1/10 This chart says “Bitcoin is even better for the environment than we thought”

New All Time Low For the first time ever, the Bitcoin network has dropped below 300 g/KWh emissions * It's taken just over 3 years to half its emission intensity * No other industry is reducing its emission intensity at such a rate.

“Bitcoin is used for criminals” Source: criminals Total fraud penalties for banks since 2000: $387,559,149,283

I just about fell off my chair. In what is a significant shift, The Financial Times just published its first cautiously pro-Bitcoin ESG article. ft.com/content/b26b5af8-0cf1…

🫡To those who community noted Elizabeth Warren each time she spread misinformation about Bitcoin 🫡 To those who shared data tirelessly with regulators, legislators and the general public showing that fiat was the preferred tool for financial crimes, not Bitcoin 🫡To those who published research showing Bitcoin stabilized and decarbonized grids while reducing electricity prices for residential users 🫡To those who got stories published showcasing Bitcoin's social and environmental benefits 🫡To those who wrote to and spoke to their representatives and Senators 🫡 To those who tirelessly debunked the false energy narratives of de Vries, @greenpeaceusa, Gabriel Dance and other architects of misinformation 🫡To the miners who got on with their job of mining, despite all the draconian demands for proprietary information, threats of tax: existential threat on a daily basis. 🫡To those who stood up for truth and dedicated many unpaid hours for a mission bigger than yourself, stand tall knowing that you are not only watching history - you are creating it. There is much work to be done. But savor this moment. politico.com/news/2024/05/17…

Greenpeace spent years lobbying to save Virunga park and failed Leonardo DiCaprio spent millions on a documentary to try to save Virunga park and failed @SebGouspillou a Bitcoin miner, said "we can monetize Virunga's stranded renewable energy to save the park" and succeeded

Bitcoin adoption is happening as slowly as the Internet

Is this what you mean by "working together" Brad?

0/16 BREAKING: Bitcoin mining can slash methane emissions by 2030. Bitcoin mining can reduce our global emissions by up to 8% by 2030, simply by converting the world’s wasted and dangerous methane emissions into 80x less harmful emissions.

BREAKING: @greenpeaceusa accidentally tell truth ~then quickly delete They thought Cleanspark was showing Bitcoin miners how to behave, not realising they mine bitcoin! GreenpeaceUSA would like to apologise to Chris Larsen. Normal misinformation services will resume shortly

A tale of 2 countries 2 years ago * El Salvador chose Bitcoin * Argentina chose IMF loans TODAY *El Salvador: 7.2% inflation, presidential approval 90% *Argentina: 109% inflation, presidential DISapproval 75% bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Today, I received confirmation that another nation state is currently discussing - a Bitcoin strategic reserve - drafting Bitcoin mining regulations so they can improve their electrical grid and better monetize stranded energy It's happening

Why the ECB attack on Bitcoin is '22's most bullish event Until now, Central Banks like ECB have only attacked Bitcoin through their derivative products For example: DNB is a central bank. But it has never ... 🧵

An #ESG attack on #BTC weakens the credibility of #ESG, not #BTC

Misleading statistic because much of Bitcoin's energy usage is often from stranded, wasted sources that others cannot utilize. It has also been shown in 20 peer reviewed papers and 7 independent studies to stabilize and decarbonize grids, mitigate methane and lower electricity prices and is 52.4% sustainably powered (unlike the much lower sustainable power mix of the banking industry, and gold mining - which Bitcoin provides viable and technologically superior alternatives to) source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/192301… Contrary to the implications of this tweet, Bitcoin has 19 well documented usecases that create value to society. source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/183387… Important context: Bitcoin threatens IMF with disintermediation in 5 ways which I have categories previously here --> nitter.app/DSBatten/status/187355… and IMF has a reputation for openly opposing Bitcoin, repeatedly citing "concerns" that have consistently failed to materialize. (source: bitcoinmagazine.com/featured…) Its perspective on Bitcoin is neither neutral nor objective.

FACT: @Greenpeaceusa, a former grassroots organisation, took $5M from Ripple's CEO to spread misinformation about Bitcoin MYTH: Bitcoin is bad for the environment REALITY: Bitcoin stabilizes grids, makes solar&wind profitable & is helping slash global methane emissions

Switzerland is currently the only nation in Europe who understand Bitcoin as money, and Bitcoin mining as a renewable energy creation flywheel.

Sadly, the only thing breaking is GreenpeaceUSA’s credibility. One of the features of GreenpeaceUSA reports is that they are very easy to debunk. You rarely make it past the first paragraph without reading a large swathe of misinformation. This latest report is no exception. 1.The majority of the electricity for Bitcoin mining comes from oil, coal, and gas. [1] This source relies on a very old dataset, which no longer accurately describes the bitcoin network. It is now widely acknowledged that bitcoin using mostly sustainable energy. (Source: Bloomberg Intelligence Sept 2023, Bitcoin reaches 52.6% sustainable energy use) 2. “And Bitcoin’s carbon footprint has only grown over time.” This is again highly inaccurate and misleading to readers. The first four-year (entire HODL-period analysis) of bitcoin emissions showed that it has not grown in the last four years. 3. “Bitcoin mines, essentially large warehouses of specialized computers, also consume large and growing amounts of water from generating their needed electricity and cooling equipment. Operations in the U.S. alone use as much water as 300,000 households – about the size of Washington, DC. [3]” The resource-use-per transaction data comes from a non-peer reviewed commentary from Alex de Vries (central bank employee). His method has been debunked in peer reviewed research as well as by Cambridge Judge Business School. In other words, this figure for water consumption is also false, and GreenPeaceUSA, we’re they acting in good faith to educate the public, should desist from using it. 4. “Meanwhile the increased energy demand from Bitcoin mines is straining electrical grids and increasing costs for ratepayers, while doing little to nothing for the expansion of renewable energy. [4]” Amazingly, GreenpeaceUSA has combined three false statements into a single sentence. Let’s debunk each one in turn 1.Bitcoin mining far from straining electrical grids have been shown in peer reviewed research to help grid operators balance grids, prevent blackouts and obviate the need for gas leaker plants 2.Bitcoin mining was observed by Brad Jones to “lower the cost of electricity for all Texans” by making demand response services more competitive and establishing a base price for electricity 3.Bitcoin mining has been observed in peer reviewed research (Cornell University) to make renewable operations more profitable, and to accelerate the renewable transition. We know from direct feedback that other branches of Greenpeace have asked serious questions about GreenpeaceUSA’s anti-Bitcoin campaign, their tactics and the reliability of the information sources they have used. We also know that other environmental organisations have pulled back their criticism of bitcoin once having taken the time to learn more about it. Sadly, GreenpeaceUSA has chosen to ignore the growing mass of evidence (3 independent reports, 6 peer reviewed studies) and endorsements from WEF, the Human Rights Foundation and a growing list of independent think tanks and institutes including Tikula Foundation (Africa), KPMG, Institute of Risk Management who have showcased Bitcoin’s positive environmental externalities. Do better. Each time you spread misinformation or no-longer-current information you weaken your own voice, and with it your ability to be a positive voice for change.

You are welcome to your opinion Equally, when you say "Bitcoin is useless", you are saying that each and every one of the recorded usecases of Bitcoin is useless In other words, you are saying: 1. Helping bring energy abundance to these 1800 African villagers have no value unherd.com/2024/01/the-afric… 2. Getting aid to 1000s of war refugees is useless wired.co.uk/article/ukraine-… 3 Developing energy independence for Bhutan is useless impact.economist.com/project… 4. Protecting National Parks in Africa is useless technologyreview.com/2023/01… 5. Helping 19.4 million Afghanastani women avoid State-level financial discrimination is useless bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/… 6. Establishing the economic sovereignty of 14 African nations still experiencing French financial colonization is useless foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/03… 7. The idea of creating an alternative to a monetary system which can and does elongate wars, increase wealth gaps, bail out bankers but fail to protect employees and small businesses is useless amazon.com/Engine-Inequality… 8. The potential to provide banking to up to 2 Billion unbanked is useless impact.economist.com/project…… cnbc.com/2023/03/26/bitcoin-… 9. Providing a financial system that is harder to use for money laundering than fiat currency is useless decrypt.co/125623/crooks-def… 10. Removing the risk of financial reprisal for running humanitarian campaigns in autocratic nations where 5.7Billion people live is useless bbc.com/news/world-africa-56… 11. Providing 250 Million people in countries experiencing hyperinflation a means to stop 50%+ erosion of their family savings per year is useless cointribune.com/en/argentina… 12. Allowing people in developing nations to receive remittance payments from family without delays and without heavy fees is useless thenextweb.com/news/el-salva… 13. Having a secure, permissionless, decentralized, 24/7 store of value with fixed monetary supply is useless bitcoin.com/get-started/the-… 14. The accomplishment of becoming the world's most sustainably powered industry is useless nitter.app/DSBatten/status/167032… 15. Accelerating the renewable transition by making renewable generation more profitable is useless news.cornell.edu/stories/202… 16. Reducing more emissions from landfills than the largest DAC project in the world ever achieved is useless renewableenergymagazine.com/… 17. Developing an monetary financial system with significantly lower emissions and emissions intensity than the banking system is useless nasdaq.com/articles/a-compar…… nitter.app/DSBatten/status/167133… Arguing that even one of these things is useless, or that Bitcoin does not deliver this promised value would I think be difficult. Though, have a go if you wish. But arguing that all 17 have are useless (which you'd need to do in order to contend that Bitcoin is useless)? That would require mental gymnastics beyond the level to justify flat-earth theory. It's rare I see a technology with one benefits akin to the ones above. But to have 17 usecases of such world-changing dimension - that is a once in a generation technology.

"Bitcoin is used by criminals" Source: Criminals

Two ways to use $5M A. Build a 1.5MW Bitcoin mobile mining unit running off landfill gas, mitigating 148,000 T CO2-e per year (Bitcoiners) B. Run a media PR campaign attacking the community of people who do A (@greenpeaceusa)

That’s right. The Energy required for Gold extraction is mostly from fossil fuels, so it has a much higher environmental impact and emission intensity than bitcoin mining, which is fully electrified, and does not leave mercury or arsenic in the local land and water supply.

Ethiopia made over $55 million in the last 10 months by mining Bitcoin. The electricity would otherwise have gone to waste. Why? Although Ethiopia has the capacity to generate 6 Gigawatts from the new dam, Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) hasn't yet built the transmission lines to supply all that electricity generated. So, in the meantime the dam authorities sell electricity to Bitcoin mining companies. These electricity sales were 18% of EEPs total revenue last year, vastly improving profitability. What do they do with that unexpected extra profit? They fast-track the building of new transmission lines so they can get that extra electricity to people sooner. Far from "taking renewable power away" from people, Bitcoin mining catalyzes giving it to them much faster.

Considering recent history, perhaps @nayibbukele could send some Salvadorian electoral officials to the US to help ensure free and fair elections

🧵While we were sleeping, the European Commission (via ESMA & ECB) has been creating a report which they plan to label bitcoin -environmentally harmful -a threat to EU energy security -a haven for financial criminals Paving the way for 2025 de facto EU bans on BTC & BTC mining

The narrative is not shifting. The narrative has shifted.

Fixed it “Bitcoin is a worldwide problem for autocratic politicians, central bankers, propagandists, and a pantheon of other people who‘s position of influence is predicated upon absolute control”

OK I'm calling it The tide has turned in the narrative around Bitcoin & energy In last 90 days - Cambridge admit #Bitcoin energy calculations overstated - 2 academic papers (incl MIT) state environmental benefits to Bitcoin - KPMG report Bitcoin has positive ESG rating

B𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: #Bitcoin mining has the lowest emission intensity of any sector of the economy Emission intensity (per KWh) - Iron & Steel: 856g - Gold: 679g - Agriculture: 646g - Industrial: 502g - Banking: 464g - Bitcoin: 296g batcoinz.com/comparing-bitco…

For 3 months I've quietly been working on exposing what IMF has done behind the scenes to prevent Nation State Bitcoin adoption It's out in the open now👇 bitcoinmagazine.com/featured… Thanks @jperkinsauthor, @gladstein who inspired this. @HRF @BitcoinMagazine for your support

🧵 How 3 EU Central Banks are working together to try to weaken Bitcoin What action each of them has taken What are their next moves What we must do 👇

An open letter to @BillGates Dear Bill It is a free world, so I celebrate the fact you have the freedom to express your opinion "Bitcoin is useless". Equally, as a person of influence, you have the duty of care to make sure that your opinion is an informed one. Your comment "Bitcoin is useless" demonstrates that either a. You are uninformed, or b. You do not care for vast swathes of human life. Considering your well documented philanthropic efforts, I will assume it is the former, not the latter. So as someone who has spent a little more time than you researching the uses of Bitcoin, let me lay it out to you unambiguously. When you say "Bitcoin is useless", you are saying that: 1. Fast tracking the delivery of renewable energy to millions of Ethiopians is useless nitter.app/DSBatten/status/188677… 2. Getting aid to 1000s of war refugees is useless cnbc.com/2022/03/23/ukrainia… 3 Developing energy independence for Bhutan is useless impact.economist.com/project… 4. Saving National Parks in Africa from closure is useless technologyreview.com/2023/01… 5. Helping Afghanastani women avoid State-level financial discrimination is useless bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/… 6. Establishing the economic sovereignty of 14 African nations still experiencing French financial colonization is useless foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/03… 7. The idea of creating an alternative to a monetary system which can and does elongate wars, increase wealth gaps, bail out bankers but fail to protect employees and small businesses is useless amazon.com/Engine-Inequality… 8. The potential to provide banking to up to 2 Billion unbanked is useless impact.economist.com/project… cnbc.com/2023/03/26/bitcoin-… 9. Providing a financial system that is harder to use for money laundering than fiat currency is useless decrypt.co/125623/crooks-def… 10. Removing the risk of financial reprisal for running humanitarian campaigns in autocratic nations where 5.7Billion people live is useless bbc.com/news/world-africa-56… 11. Providing up to 250 Million people in countries experiencing hyperinflation a means to stop 50%+ erosion of their family savings per year is useless cointribune.com/en/argentina… 12. Allowing people in developing nations to receive remittance payments from family without delays and without heavy fees is useless thenextweb.com/news/el-salva… 13. Having a secure, permissionless, decentralized, 24/7 store of value with fixed monetary supply is useless bitcoin.com/get-started/the-… 14. The accomplishment of becoming the world's most sustainably powered industry is useless nitter.app/DSBatten/status/167032… 15. Accelerating the renewable transition by making renewable generation more profitable is useless news.cornell.edu/stories/202… 16. Reducing more emissions from landfills than the largest DAC project in the world ever achieved is useless renewableenergymagazine.com/… 17. Developing an monetary financial system with significantly lower emissions and emissions intensity than the banking system is useless nasdaq.com/articles/a-compar… nitter.app/DSBatten/status/167133… 18. Helping bring energy abundance to these 1800 African villagers have no value unherd.com/2024/01/the-afric… As I'm sure you'll agree, these uses are not only far from useless, but coincide with the very environmental and humanitarian causes that you have set up a foundation to help! While have read many books, it is clear however from your comments that a book on Bitcoin has not yet been one of them. Can I suggest you take steps to remedy this if you're planning on saying more about Bitcoin? As it stands, you are in your ignorance belittling a technology that is helping vast numbers of people already - often on matters of life or death, human dignity and basic human freedoms - and many of whom are those in the African continent that have publicly stated that you care greatly about. Please do better in your research, and be more evidence-based in your comments next time Bill. Sincerely Daniel Batten Climatetech Investor and Bitcoin analyst

Two years ago, @JeffBooth challenged me to say why the ultimate environmental benefit of Bitcoin is how it replaces the fiat economy's incentive to consume and waste, with a Bitcoin incentive to think about tomorrow and save Took me two years Jeff, but here it is!

This is how we flatten it

Thank you New York Times for one of the best pieces of marketing for bitcoin this year

Been waiting 2 years for this data: Peer reviewed evidence that when a solar farm uses Bitcoin mining, they achieve ROI more than twice as fast. ie: Failure to use Bitcoin mining has slowed the renewable transition source: cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2… Details in linked tweet 👇

The NY Times' journalistic integrity is now on trial. Let's consider the evidence based on their recent article on Bitcoin mining, specifically, who they excluded from their investigation. 59.9% of US's Bitcoin miners use the ERCOT grid. Who was appointed to run the ERCOT grid after they recovered from Winter Storm Uri? : Brad Jones Who, as the ERCOT grid operator, is the one person best qualified in the country because of his in-depth knowledge of grids, demand response, flexible load, and Bitcoin mining: Brad Jones Who if you were going to do a piece of investigative journalism on the interplay between Bitcoin mining and grids would be top of your list to speak to: Brad Jones Who is not a member of the Bitcoin mining community and holds no Bitcoin, nor any interest in Bitcoin as an asset class: Brad Jones Who said this about Bitcoin mining: "Bitcoin mining helps find a home for new renewable energy on the grid and then helps stabilize their intermittency." Brad Jones Who did NYTimes not interview and cite for their article: Brad Jones All roads lead to the same conclusion: it is impossible for a team of 3 people doing genuine investigative journalism on Bitcoin mining in the US to spend 6 months time, and not interview Brad Jones. The evidence suggests that the New York times had pre-decided months ago they wanted to write a piece on "Bitcoin is bad for the environment" then went looking for interview candidates who would say things that supported their thesis. That's not OK. This is about more than Bitcoin now. This is about journalistic integrity. When you present a piece that is not objective journalism as though it is, you are not just unfairly maligning the person or technology you write about and misleading your readers, you are eroding one of the four pillars of democracy: the fourth estate If there is one party who is putting things we cherish at risk and who should be cleaning up their act, I would suggest that it is not Bitcoin miners but the NY Times.

The death of Bitcoin gaslighting in the mainstream media Using litmaps, we can see that the origin of all junk science on Bitcoin's environmental impact was a single commentary (not even a full length paper) by Alex de Vries The method he used to claim that Bitcoin's environmental damage was a growing concern was his fundamentally flawed "energy use per transactions" method (Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions, therefore it can scale transaction volume exponentially without increasing emissions). de Vries' metric has now been debunked in 4 academic journals *Masanet et al 2019 researchgate.net/publication… *Dittmar et al. 2019 nature.com/articles/s41558-0… *Sedlmeir et al, 2020 link.springer.com/article/10… *Sai and Vraken 2023 sciencedirect.com/science/ar… The entirety of de Vries' work was systematically debunked by Sai and Vranken in late 2023 source:sciencedirect.com/science/ar… That's why 96% of mainstream media outlets (everyone except laggards @Verge and @Wired) are no longer gaslighting Bitcoin's environmental impact. In many cases, they've even started covering Bitcoin's environmental benefits source for 12 mainstream media outlets: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/186702… source for 7 sustainability periodicals: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/186665… There is much re-education work to do though. Much of the population was misinformed over many years, and as a result many investment committees, regulators and policymakers still do not know that 13 of the last 15 papers support the environmental benefits of Bitcoin. source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/186394… Once they do, we will see mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, and mainstream adoption of Bitcoin mining as part of climate action (aka: what the peer reviewed research tells us it is) source: pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs…

Just in: Satellite readings from a landfill we're looking to finance a bitcoin mining project It is emitting 1.535 tonnes of methane every hour! Because methane is 84x more warming over a 20-year period than CO2, that means we can mitigate over 1 Million tonnes of CO2e emissions every year. In 200 climatetech technologies, I've never seen a technology that can reduce as many emissions per dollar invested as Bitcoin mining. 35 similarly sized projects, and Bitcoin becomes the world's first emission-negative network. The landfill owner approached us because there is no other potential user for that power. It is also not an option to sell the power to the grid. This means onsite bitcoin mining is his only feasible option. It will also pay him money for the power generated. * and ... because the project generates not only PE-style returns through equipment financing, but carbon credits it also has an asymmetrically good risk:reward for wholesale investors. Onwards!

1/5 Africa has validated the usecase for Bitcoin as a medium of exchange "𝟳𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 #Bitcoin 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 $𝟭,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁" source: chainalysis.com/blog/africa-…

Why the @BBCNews article on Bitcoin and Water is a monument to journalistic laziness bbc.com/news/technology-6756… The day after the Independent publish the results of a high quality independent study on Bitcoin, the BBC publish the junk-science of a known anti-Bitcoin lobbyist using already debunked methodology to claim Bitcoin uses too much water. The first problem is the source of the study the BBC quote is de Vries: the employee of DNB (the Dutch Central Bank). Central Banks have a vested interest in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about Bitcoin for one very simple reason: Bitcoin disintermediates central bankers. De Vries has a history of making predictions which has proven wildly inaccurate. For example, in 2017 his inaccurate modeling of Bitcoin energy consumption was one of the two inputs which formed the basis of the prediction that "Bitcoin will use all the World's power by 2020". That didn't happen. It was inaccurate by 2509x He has also been behind the creation of misleading metrics such as the "energy cost per transaction" metric: a metric which has been debunked as false by Cambridge University. De Vries has heavily criticised Bitcoin for proliferating the use of fossil fuels for years. However recent studies from Bloomberg Intelligence have shown that unlike the Banking & Financial Services Sector, Bitcoin uses 53% sustainable energy. Rather than acknowledge error and move on, De Vries has simply pivoted his attack into other areas. Now that it is clear Bitcoin's major energy source is not coal (as De Vries had falsely claimed) but hydro, Bitcoin is suddenly bad for using too much water. It is a classic case of "damned if you do" (use renewable energy), "damned if you don't". In other words it is the disingenuous argument of someone who has pre-decided that Bitcoin is bad, and is now looking for new narratives to support that, as the old narratives get debunked. The water usage claim is ridiculous for 2 simple reasons. Firstly, water use per transaction is as false a metric as "energy use per transaction". Bitcoin's use of energy (and water) does not come from transaction, it comes from mining companies producing Bitcoin. It's like saying "New Zealand have 100 Billion GDP and 20 Million Sheep, therefore we have $50,000 GDP per sheep. Once we have a false metric in place, we can make all sorts of absurd claims such as "Therefore if we double our number of sheep, we double our GDP". Had the BBC done their homework, they would have uncovered de Vries' history as Central Bank lobbyist against Bitcoin. They did not. Had they done their homework, they would have realised that Bitcoin uses chiefly stranded and wasted hydropower that otherwise no other user could have used. They did not. Had they done their homework, they would have realised that it is possible to use the metrics de Vries' study uses to attack any user of power that you want to single out for attack. They did not. This is poor form from the BBC. Just one day earlier, The Independent published an article based on real science, an independent study from Cornell University showing the Bitcoin had the ability to increase the profitability of renewable energy, therefore to accelerate the renewable transition. Unlike de Vries who is neither an expert in energy nor independent, the study's author is a multiple-award winning highly regarded academic author in their field. This year, mainstream news channels are starting to report the independent evidence-based benefits of Bitcoin as a user of stranded energy. The Financial Times, Bloomberg and The Independent have all published the results of quality independent research this year. It would seem that the BBC is consigning themselves to the wrong side of history when it comes to Bitcoin ESG reporting as one of the media outlets who chose not to research their sources, and those sources' agendas and track-record. Shocking headlines about Bitcoin I am sure will provide better clickbait for the BBC. They will also ultimately tarnish its reputation. The BBC has often looked down upon US-based news channels as being corporate-sponsored and therefore vulnerable to capture by vested interests. The BBC is self-proclaimed as "the world’s leading public service broadcaster". Really? Upon what basis? Perhaps this was true once, but this self-proclamation must be earnt on merits, not history. Bad reporting can also occur due to intellectual laziness, and such laziness tarnishes the claim to be "world leading". If the BBC and @radioproducer want to educate themselves about the flood of positive ESG reports and scientific publications that have come out on Bitcoin this year - hey even just learning what Bitcoin is and how it's valuable would be a good start - we are ready for you.

When I first heard of Bitcoin I had no interest I was and am a climate activist and a climatetech investor But I decided to research it In doing so I ended up realising we're unlikely to meet either our renewable transition or methane reduction targets without bitcoin mining

World's 4th largest power company says Bitcoin can solve its wasted renewable problem Probably nothing cryptopotato.com/worlds-4th-…

"Am I dreaming?" moment: European Central Banker advocating for a Bitcoin strategic reserve, and saying "Bitcoin not crypto"

1/7 Environmentally, Bitcoin has a positive:negative ratio of 31:1 This mean Bitcoin is probably the most important ESG technology of our time As a fund manager I'd opine its gross negligence for an ESG investor not to consider it in their mix Here's a data summary 👇 🧵

Just in. @Forbes just consolidated their right to be called "first large mainstream media company who got it" 👇👇 forbes.com/sites/digital-ass…

There you have it, from the mouth of the president of the European Central Bank To reassure people about the digital euro, she cites China as a "success story" and says explicitly that EU is following China's lead on Centralized Digital Currency. Here's why this matters that they are explicitly copying China's model: China's Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the e-CNY, gives the People's Bank of China for the first time the surveillance powers to track all citizens' financial transactions in real-time. Because their CBDC records every transaction, this gives the government detailed visibility into every citizens' financial activities. All larger transactions are traceable under laws like the Cybersecurity Law. This capability gives Chinese authorities the power to ❌monitor and control behavior ❌track spending to identify dissenters ❌enforce social compliance via the social credit system ❌restrict funds for critics The technology makes mass surveillance and (further) erosion of civil liberties technologically possible, while providing Chinese authorities a tool for the state to exert unprecedented control over its population. ECB will say "Well, in theory that's true, but we will only use that ring of power to do good for the world" If you are feeling uncomfortable with that level of power, you are right to trust your instinct. Computer science says this is bad technology design because historically, potentials to abuse centralized power granted by technology have been used, and the only way to safeguard people against abuse is to have good technology design that makes this algorithmically impossible. This is something that Bitcoin does, whereas CBDCs open up exponentially more potential for abuse of central power than currently exists. So if you trust ECB to be an positive outlier, are comfortable disregarding good technology design principles designed to keep people safe, and trust your government and Central Bank to have all that power - but not to use it, then you have nothing to be concerned about.

Evaluating Elizabeth Warren's claims about Iran and Bitcoin - a data-based approach: Elizabeth Warren has just made the incredible claim that Iran "relies on digital assets mining as a source of revenue that can lessen the pressure from U.S. sanctions." To do this, Iran's revenue from Bitcoin mining would have to be a significant portion of GDP. So let's look at the data, to see if this claim has any validity. The first point is that data she uses is from 2021, when Iran had 4% of global hashrate. However, since 2022, Iran's hashrate had already shrunk to 1/40th the size, a mere 0.1% of hashrate. (Source: Cambridge) Post-halving, ~164,250 Bitcoin are produced per year. At today's price of bitcoin (60K). At 0.1% of global hashrate, this makes Iran's maximum revenue from Bitcoin mining $9.86Million + fees Iran's GDP is $413Billion (Source: World Bank) So assuming a generous fee premium of 25%, Bitcoin mining represents 0.003% of Iran's GDP. It doesn't take an economics expert to tell that this is would be insufficient to lessen the economic impact of sanctions. Conclusion: Senator Warren's assertion is at best unsupported by data, at worst an attempt to intentionally mislead the public and create fear which has no basis in fact. The fact that Senator Warren has previously made claims about Bitcoin that have failed fact-checking (see her previously community noted posts on Bitcoin which made false claims about Bitcoin and money laundering) suggests that it is more likely an attempt to intentionally mislead people. If politicians are wondering why trust in govt is at an all time low, they need look no further than their provably false claims. coindesk.com/policy/2024/05/…

Bhutan's government just launched a crypto-payment system that allows tourists to pay with Bitcoin for flights, hotels and visas. Yes, the government did this! Smart! 🚀🚀🚀

Whitehouse: "Crypto mining that captures vented methane can yield positive results for the climate." Ethereum: "Almost finished removing the feature that does that"

"Bitcoin miners are taking our energy" is the new "Immigrants are taking our jobs"

Think different One of the greatest things about #Bitcoin is that you can only get it if you think below the surface. That creates a whole community of people who think deeply about stuff For example:

This is significant The Independent, a liberal leaning UK major news source with a monthly reach of 19,826,000 people, just ran the Cornell University Study whose findings suggest "Bitcoin mining could supercharge transition to renewables" independent.co.uk/tech/bitco… The paper's author Fengqi You is highly respected in his field. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengqi… This represents a shift for The Independent, who previously ran negative ESG press about Bitcoin - joining Bloomberg and the Financial Times as publications who have published pro-Bitcoin ESG articles for the first time in 2023. The article contains the acknowledgement "The plummeting costs of renewable energy mean bitcoin miners are increasingly turning to solar, wind and hydro sources to power their operations." and the quote "the beauty of the protocol is that the incentive structure will force miners to adopt the cheapest form of electricity" While this isn't saying anything that those who study Bitcoin Mining don't already know, what's significant is that accurate reporting about Bitcoin mining is for the first time starting to consistently occur in an increasing number of Mainstream news sources this year.

Brad Jones, former CEO ERCOT just confirmed that Bitcoin mining · Makes renewable operators more profitable · Accelerates the renewable transition · Does not compete with other users of electricity · Drives electricity costs for all users DOWN As an expert on grids who's seen Bitcoin mining on grids firsthand, he's the person most qualified to make an objective assessment Here’s what he said: Bitcoin mining makes renewable operators more profitable “In the last 2 years there was 1100 hours of negative pricing. That means we are paying consumers to consume electricity. The reason that occurs is that we have a lot of renewables in the State. When the wind is really blowing, we simply can’t use all that power. Bitcoin allows those renewables to earn money during those times rather than having to shut off their service, or even having to pay customers to use their power.” Bitcoin mining assists the renewable transition “Bitcoin mining helps to sustain those markets for renewables and drives more renewables.” Bitcoin does not compete with other users of electricity “And then when prices go up [because many people want power at the same time], Bitcoin comes offline because its not economical.” Bitcoin drives the cost of electricity for all consumers DOWN “The real value of Bitcoin is its flexibility. The capability for us to use it in our ancillary services at the lowest possible cost means cost for all consumers of in the state of Texas.” ~ Brad Jones, former CEO ERCOT post-Winter Storm Uri

1/7 Within just 53 days this year, the ESG narrative on Bitcoin flipped This tweet documents the 5 key events that led to the flip It happened so fast that many of the world's Investment Committees have not yet caught up Let's help them! 🧵

Imaging a gold mining company holding all the gold they mine then purchasing more off retail. Never happens Imagine a property developer holding all the property they develop, then buying more off other developers Never happens Imagine an altcoin founder never selling their coins, then buying more off retail. The opposite happens The gold mining company, the altcoin founder, the property developer often understands the asset and its market dynamics better than anyone. They also know they can make more money by creating the asset than holding the asset. That's why they sell it. So when the creator of the asset decides not only to hold the asset, but to buy more of it, it's the most bullish sign you can ever get for any asset class. In the last four weeks, three Bitcoin mining companies have bought significant amounts of Bitcoin. If you still don't get how significant this is, you are not paying close enough attention.

Plebs, Bitcoin miners, human rights defenders unite! The European Commission (EC) is about to take a draconian and unscientific stance towards Bitcoin that can not only pave the way for an EU mining ban, but could have far-reaching consequences for the entire global Bitcoin community. Context: The EC is developing a methodology to calculate and mitigate the environmental impact of Bitcoin. It includes a proposal to measure all crypto-assets resource consumption "per transaction", and only evaluates the negative impact of Bitcoin using a suite of suite of reports that have ben financially backed by Central Banks and Ripple Corporation This is a nonsense metric that was been previously debunked by Cambridge University in 2018. The fact that the EC have ignored both the science, and the sea-change in the Bitcoin ESG narrative this year shows that their intentions have nothing to do with sustainability, and everything to do with protecting intrenched interests who could be disrupted by Bitcoin. If the EC wins, BTC will be officially labelled "an environmentally harmful asset that undermines sustainability goals for the EU" It will also enshrine the ECs right to use bogus-metrics to evaluate environmental impact, while ignoring quality peer-reviewed research showing the positive environmental externalities of Bitcoin. They will then promote this standards/labelling globally. What can you do? * Send a draft of 1-5 pages to @jardemalie or @lyudakozlovska using succinct objective language and evidence, by THIS FRIDAY 7 DEC or email lyudmylakozlovska@odfoundation.eu In your submission, highlight: ✅why and how Bitcoin can be a net-benefit to the environment ✅point out that a framework which only evaluate only negative externalities of a technology is incomplete, unobjective/ unscientific ✅cite high quality references Show examples of how Bitcoin mining can help meet the EUs sustainability goals (for example: WOSTP has already written that "vented methane based crypto-asset mining is more likely to help than hinder the US Govts climate objectives") ❌DO NOT "it's energy use is justified because", "Other assets use more energy", or debating whether climate change is occurring or use language that personally attacks any one ✅DO highlight that every technology initially has a carbon footprint, use evidence to show that emissions are not increasing and that there is a realistic chance Bitcoin can become the first industry to fully mitigate emissions without offsets, point out known limitations in current models, use your own examples of Bitcoin's positive environmental impact that are less known ✅Retweet this message, and mobilize other honeybadgers Currently, the EU relies on reports like this: greenpeace.org/usa/wp-conten… Counter these claims, showing evidence of where they are provably false, misleading due to missing context, inaccurate, or no-longer-true Now is the time to channel your time, passion, and brain into defending freedom. We do not have the resources, the entrenched powers, the ability to spread FUD widely through mainstream news channels that the opponents of Bitcoin do. We don't agree on everything as Bitcoiners. But we all agree on one thing: that is the need for a global currency together with global mining that cannot be centrally controlled, attacked, manipulated and suppressed. Today's the day to fight for the continuation of that freedom * Original EU Report on Bitcoin which contains ample examples of statements you can rebut europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e… Here's some examples of 1. Evidence of bias in mainstream bitcoin environmental impact reporting batcoinz.com/a-tale-of-two-a… 2. Positive benefits of Bitcoin mining Water security: batcoinz.com/how-bitcoin-can… 3. Limitations in current models of Bitcoin environmental impact batcoinz.com/the-bitcoin-fac… 4. How to do an evidenced-based rebuttal batcoinz.com/rebuttal-of-gre… 5. Contextualized data that challenges existing and incomplete models with known limitations batcoinz.com/comparing-bitco… batcoinz.com/accurately-dyna… 6. How Bitcoin helps Methane Mitigation batcoinz.com/50-landfills-mi… 7. A more up-to-date model than Cambridges' (also the one that Bloomberg Intelligence now use instead of Cambridge's model which is both incomplete and 23 months out of date ) batcoinz.com/beest/ Why are you still reading this tweet - turn off X and other notifications, and start writing!!!

We are now 2 years in to Bhutan's Bitcoin experiment. That means we now hae some good data on how it has affected the economy. The IMF warned that nations embracing Bitcoin would destabilize their economy, be less effective at attracting foreign direct investment, and endanger their decarbonizing and environmental initiatives. What does the data say: 1. The bitcoin reserves have directly addressed pressing fiscal needs. "In June 2023, Bhutan allocated $72 million from its holdings to finance a 50% salary increase for civil servants" 2. Bhutan was able to "use Bitcoin reserves to avert a crisis as foreign currency reserves dwindled to $689 million" 3. Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay in an interview said that bitcoin also "supports free healthcare and environmental projects" 4. Tobgay also said their Bitcoin reserves helped in "stabilizing [the nation’s] $3.5 billion economy" 5. Independent analysts have now said that "this model could attract foreign investment, particularly for nations with untapped renewable resources" Considering how the IMF analysis was not just wrong, but roughly 180° off target, it begs the question, was the IMF's predictions ever based on data? Or maybe they just possibly have had another agenda in predicting the adverse impact of any nation embracing Bitcoin?

“I believe in the horse. The automobile is a transitory phenomenon" ~Kaiser Wilhelm II ~1905 "There's no reason anyone would want a computer in their home" ~Ken Olson, co-founder DEC, 1977 "In 10 years Bitcoin will be closed down" ~Jamie Dimon, Jeffrey Epstein's Banker, 2025

Like EVs, Bitcoin is a fully electrified, so they have no direct emissions Like EVs, Bitcoin has indirect emissions from electricity was generated using fossil fuels TL; DR: Bitcoin uses significantly more sustainable energy, and significantly less fossil fuel

MARA's announcement they recycling heat from Bitcoin mining rigs to heat the homes of almost 80,000 residents (1.4% of Finland's population) is the largest application yet for heat recycling. Here's why it's significant. Finland's grid is mostly clean energy, however 25% of home heating is still fossil fuel-based. By running mining rigs on clean energy, and recycling the heat they produce for home heating, Bitcoin mining, if scaled up could obviate the need for fossil fuel based heating in homes across Finland Bitcoin has already been shown to have a decarbonizing impact on the world in peer reviewed research by 1. mitigating methane (Rudd et al, 2024), 2. replacing the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023), 3. allowing grids to be build with higher amounts of renewable energy (Rhodes et al) and 4. accelerating the green energy transition (Lal et al, 2023) 5. accelerating renewable energy based microgrids development (Moghimi et al, 2024) The heat recycling efforts @MARAHoldings is now pursuing at scale provides a 6th way that Bitcoin is an environmental force for good.

Happy ending Earlier today Environment America put up an article called "Bitcoin’s purposeless power problem" They are pulling down their article on Bitcoin after I wrote to them pointing out numerous factual errors, with citations and data.

Thank you Bank of Thailand for the free Bitcoin marketing

For years, Bitcoin's energy was much maligned. This was based on deeply flawed and now debunked research. Now, the tide has turned in the scientific consensus and the media and I've summarized why both now say Bitcoin has environmental benefits in a plain English talk.

Almost all attacks on Bitcoin energy usage stem from one simple failure of human reasoning: The assumption: More consumption of energy = bad Less consumption = good Like most things, the truth is more nuanced than this. Here's how it really works... 👇 🧵

Ethiopia made over $55 million in just 10 months by mining Bitcoin. This electricity would otherwise have gone to waste because Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) hasn't yet built the transmission lines to supply all that electricity generated. So, in the meantime the dam authorities sell electricity to Bitcoin mining companies, contribuing 18% of EEPs total revenue last year. With the extra profit, they fast-track the building of new transmission lines so they can get that extra electricity to people sooner. It's an incredible and inspiring story, backed up by data. But rather than embark on data-driven reporting, @CryptoRank_io instead perpetuated the baseless myth that Bitcoin mining is taking power away from other people. No interviews with EEP. No interviews with the Bitcoin mining community in Ethiopia. No data. Instead, as we can see in the passage below, they hand an uncontested mic to a nebulous group simply called "critics" to lay down a pot pouri of lazy insinuations that Bitcoin miners are competing with other users of power, (whereas the data shows Bitcoin mining co's are helping them get access to power earlier). Not sure whether its ignorance, or intentionally misleading content. I'll assume the former, but either way, the article stinks: Do better Crypto Rank!

"Zoom out!" 1. Ethereum will become carbon neutral, but Bitcoin will become carbon negative - many times over 2. ETH will have less environmental impact pre-2024 3. #Bitcoin is order of magnitude better from 2024 onwards

This chart says "this is why our wars are longer, the wealth-gap is larger and Satoshi Nakamoto created #Bitcoin"

Massive levels of bank account freezing initiated in both Thailand and Vietnam in the last few weeks Thailand and Vietnam also have some of the highest rates of Bitcoin adoption in the world Must be a coincidence

This didn't age well

Well done for doing more research than most. A few points here that are not factually correct, or no longer factually correct. 1. The Greenidge Factory was not resurrected to mine bitcoin (this was misreported)but to supply power back to the grid, and did not commence bitcoin mining until some years later. The SEC filings confirm this. 2. The Montana coal factory has not been mining bitcoin since late 2022. It was fully migrated to a wind farm in Texas. 3. Kentucky’s carbon footprint has nothing to do with bitcoin mining, nor the tax incentives offered to bitcoin mining. 4. “Most bitcoin mining is done using fossil fuels” is no longer correct. This was true prior to the exodus of mining from China, but is now 55% renewable. There are no contemporary studies that still claim that bitcoin mining is mainly fossil fuel based. The paper you cited, while written in 2023 used a 3-year old data set. 5. China did not ban bitcoin mining. 15% of global hashrate still comes from China and is mostly renewable based. It did however put a stop to coal-based bitcoin mining and some larger operations that were being used to get money out of China. 6. Most mining in China were not hydro based, they were mostly coal based (migrating to hydro during the minority of the year when it was wet season), so when some miners migrated from China, it was net decarbonising 7. “Mining moved to cheap gas in US and Kazakstan” is not correct, or at least not the full picture. Most mining moved to the Texas grid which has a high and increasing percentage of renewable energy. The migration to Kazakhstan was temporary and Kazakhstan currently has under 3% of global hashrate. Miners re-migrated after that to countries such as Paraguay, Ethiopia, Uruguay which are predominantly hydro-powered. 8. The emissions estimations of 65 Mt CO2e are now acknowledged on Cambridge’s website to be overstated due to the age of their dataset (30 months old) 9. “Wasting energy much more efficiently” is not an accurate assessment because there is much peer reviewed literature and case studies showing where bitcoin mining has prevented the waste of renewable energy. Further, “wasting energy” is a value judgment is it not? One can only claim that energy is wasted if no good to humanity is produced in the process. There are 18 recorded social good rendered possible by bitcoin mining’s Proof of Work Algorithm. 10. There is no contemporary evidence of bitcoin helping keep fossil fuel companies in business. This is factually incorrect. 11. You are correct that using more renewable energy does not make bitcoin good for the environment in and of itself. However there are features of bitcoin that do have a direct measurable decarbonising impact including the obviation of gas peaker plants and allowed entire grids to be built with a higher percentage of renewable energy than would otherwise have been possible. 12. You presented the payment of 31M to a bitcoin mining company without context. This was done as part of a demand response program. Demand response is a critical tool to stabilise grids and has existed well before bitcoin mining did. The entry into the demand response market of bitcoin mining means more suppliers compete for grid owners’ demand response revenue, making the demand response market more competitive and lowering the total cost of demand response payments made by grid owners. Brad Jones, former interim CEO of Texas’ grid observed that bitcoin mining had helped “keep the price of power low for all Texans” 13. You missed an important point in your discussion about use of flared gas: flaring does not completely destroy methane. Only 91% is destroyed according to the latest study. Because methane is 84x more warming over a 20 year period, this 9% still has a significant environmental impact. Using this flared gas for power generation is a recognised net decarbonising technique that bitcoin is now providing.

At today's ASIC prices & hashrate: $350M financing of vented methane $BTC mining: * Makes the #BTC network emission negative * Removes 32 M tonnes of CO2-e per year * Equal to planting 0.5 Billion trees * Projects are currently in planning * 2025 will be a big year

Bitcoin is likely to be the world's first major industry to go emission negative - without offsets

Bill, in case you didn't notice, the media has largely stopped reporting on this misinformation source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/180824… Why? Largely because 10 of the last 11 peer review journals show Bitcoin has positive environmental externalities, which is in agreement with what grid operators, battery engineers, solar and wind generators, and methane mitigation specialists have also observed. source: nitter.app/DSBatten/status/183840… In the meantime, Bitcoin now uses 56.72% sustainable energy. source: woocharts.com/esg-bitcoin-mi… You can find out all you need to here, next time you feel the impulse to simultaneously maximize your public display of ignorance while misinforming people docs.google.com/document/d/1…

We are watching a once in a 5000-year transformation of our entire monetary system, one step at a time

BREAKING: Cambridge revise down Bitcoin energy estimates Key points: 1. CCAF model overestimated by 16.8% in 2021, and 10.2% in 2022. This is in alignment with my previous research where I suggested earlier this year that their model was overestimating by 20.6% batcoinz.com/improving-our-e… 2. Clear evidence that GreenpeaceUSA's claim that Bitcoin used "as much energy as Sweden" was incorrect, and was based on CCAF historical overstatements 3. CCAF say explicitly that based on new estimates: Bitcoin energy use is "comparable to ... tumble dryers in the US" 4. CCAF have not yet revised their emissions estimates beyond the direct impact of revised energy consumption. 5. They are still overestimating emissions by 67.6% due to emission intensity calculations that are both overestimated, and out-of-date (have not been updated since Jan 2022). This is an improvement upon the previous estimates which were out 106% (batcoinz.com/accurately-dyna…) 6. Re: 5 above, CCAF acknowledge: "Emerging concepts we have yet to consider but could reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates include the potential to mitigate methane emissions by mining operations collocating next to oil fields and utilising otherwise flared natural gas,  using and subsequently sealing orphaned gas wells, and mitigating methane emissions from landfills, but also extend to other novel concepts such as waste-heat recovery.  7. While there is still much work to do on the emissions estimate side, CCAF should be praised for updating their model, which is now very much in line with what those with up-to-date industry data such as Luxor, Marathon, Blockware, Coinmetrics, the Bitcoin Mining council and I have been using for some time. They also deserve praise for their transparency about historical overestimations, and transparency about the factors not yet considered that could "reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates". I agree: 57 M t CO2e/year will reduce to a figure more like my model which says 34 Mt CO2e/year once the impact of offgrid miners and methane mitigation is factored in. 8. Key details from the CCAF report Full report: jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/bitcoin-e… "The backbone of our previous CBECI methodology was the assumption that every profitable hardware model released less than 5 years ago equally fuelled the total network hashrate. This, however, led to a disproportionally large number of older devices compared to newer ones in our assumed hardware distribution" …we decided to thoroughly re-examine the ASIC mining hardware distribution generated by our previous CBECI model and cross-check the results against other metrics from publicly available data. We found that more recently released equipment appeared to be underrepresented, and equipment nearing the end of its lifecycle was overrepresented. …we will explore the consequences of these changes when applied retroactively. The first and most noticeable discrepancy appears in 2021, where our previous CBECI model estimated an electricity consumption of 104.0 TWh, 15.0 TWh higher than the revised model estimate (89.0 TWh). The 2022 estimate was adjusted downward by 9.8 TWh, from 105.3 TWh to 95.5 TWh. To put this in perspective, the revised figure is comparable to the electricity consumption of countries like Belgium (83 TWh) or the Netherlands (113 TWh), [31] the energy use of tumble dryers in the US (108 TWh) Emerging concepts we have yet to consider but could reasonably be expected to lower our emission estimates include the potential to mitigate methane emissions by mining operations collocating next to oil fields and utilising otherwise flared natural gas, [32] using and subsequently sealing orphaned gas wells, [33] and mitigating methane emissions from landfills, [34] but also extend to other novel concepts such as waste-heat recovery. [35] jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/bitcoin-e…

I've been waiting 3 months to make this post The Cambridge (CCAF) data on Bitcoin has these issues 1. energy consumption (20.6% overstated) 2. emission intensity (69.4% overstated) 3. sustainable energy mix (39.9% understated) 4. emissions (106% overstated) Key reasons: * miner-map 17 months out of date (puts Kazakhstan at 13% of hashrate, whereas its currently <1%. Other issues) * mining dataset is non-representative and non-extensive (excludes the 52% of the network, who use 64.7% sustainable energy sources) * offgrid mining not measured (28% of network, who our analysis shows use 78% sustainable-energy sources) Conclusion: We shouldn't be using the CCAF models of the Bitcoin Network until their model limitations are fixed. To their credit, they are aware of the limitations, and have always been transparent about them on their website. I've been working with Luxor, Blockware and over 30 miners over the last few months to build an up-to-date model based on the Network's current miner-mix, mining map and energy sources That work is now done. If you want to dive into the weeds, you can find all the data, calcs, methodologies and analysis here 1. Emissions and emissions intensity batcoinz.com/accurately-dyna… here 2. Energy Consumption batcoinz.com/improving-our-e… and here 3. Sustainable energy mix Batcoinz.com/BEEST These 3 articles together contains the source data for the pretty charts that @willywoo and I got together to make recently when he was over in NZ. Otherwise, you can just look at the nice pretty charts.

Just in: Bitcoin mining is winning Paraguay Senate approves resolution to sell energy surplus to bitcoin miners, criticizes sale of energy to Brazil for 25% of what bitcoin mining generates, directs this energy to 20 new bitcoin mining companies instead news.bitcoin.com/paraguayan-…

Unlike El Salvador, Pakistan, Argentina, CAR, Kazakhstan does not have an IMF loan - so this order is likely to go through unimpeded.

Been posting on LinkedIn lately Surprisingly, this post got some of the best engagement Stuff we take for granted that most people still just don't know 👇 My first assessment of Bitcoin was "Speculative asset that does nothing useful but uses lots of energy." Sound familiar? What I learnt was that it was only my ignorance, arrogance and inability to imagine the lives of others living outside the West that had me believe this. The reality is that Bitcoin is in the same pantheon as the smartphone and the Internet itself in terms of its utility. But unlike its predecessors, it helps people in the global South first - the West last. That's probably why most people (like me) in the West initially fail to see its utility TO THEM, and therefore assume it has no utility TO ANYONE. Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo estimates there are 100Million+ users of Bitcoin, rising exponentially. Here's a demographic snapshot of who they are and why they use it: There are 1.2Billion people who are unbanked - 57% of them are women, 90% are people of color. There are 4Billion people living under autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes, where the financial system can be used against them (eg: state freezing of bank accounts, censoring and surveillance of how you spend money) There are 8.1M adult women in Afghanistan who are prohibited by law from opening a bank account, starting a business or receiving an income because of their gender There are >300M people who's economies are experiencing hyperinflation (including Turkey, Lebanon, Argentina, Venezuela) These are the people who see the utility of Bitcoin first. Not us in the West who take for granted our privilege, human rights, functioning banking system, 99%+ access to banking, and relatively low inflation. You may be thinking "so what - how does Bitcoin help these people?" It helps the unbanked, because you don't need a bank. A feature-phone plus some basic Bitcoin education is all you need to receive, save and pay. There's a financial revolution happening in Africa right now: the poorest in the world are leapfrogging the banking sector and going directly to Internet-native money (Bitcoin). This is why the continent of Africa is adopting Bitcoin faster than any other continent. It helps people in autocratic regimes because they cannot be surveilled, censored, de-platformed or frozen by the State. This is why Nigeria is one of the biggest adopters of Bitcoin. It's driven by human rights activism. It helps women in Afghanistan, because they can (and do) adopt bitcoin Lightening Wallets, which means state discrimination cannot deny them financial equity. It helps those living with hyperinflation because it allows them to avoid 10 years of life saving being reduced to 1/2 its value inside a year. That's why of the top 10 nations adopting Bitcoin+crypto 1. Top 2 nations are experiencing hyperinflation 2. 7 or the top 8 countries were colonised + have heavy IMF/World Bank loans 3. 8/10 are autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes 4. 7/10 from Africa, Latin America or SE Asia To more than 1/2 the world, Bitcoin is the most useful technology in a generation.

Change the Code campaign suspended Full story: batcoinz.com/p/anti-bitcoinc…

This is kinda big! I said on @PrestonPysh's podcast earlier this year that AI companies would become BTC mining companies to solve their heat dissipation and power management issues Here's more evidence of convergence happening in real time

This is big. Texas becomes 1st State to recognise that Bitcoin mining datacenters using formerly flared gas mitigate 63% of carbon emissions A win-win for the environment and Bitcoin which opens the way to mitigate (monetize) more methane emissions

Just in "The surprising, simple answer to Africa’s rural energy problems – #Bitcoin mining" -- MSN msn.com/en-za/news/other/the…

Just in: The first peer reviewed study on what sort of people are adopting Bitcoin The study is by Stefano Di Domenico, PhD - a behavioral scientist from University of Toronto and is currently being finalized for publication osf.io/yntdu Findings: "Our data, drawn from a sample of Canadian retail investors suggests that Bitcoiners 1. tend to be intellectually curious and emotionally stable 2. value personal growth, relationships, community, and health over material possessions and having a “high-status” image. 3. Scored significantly higher in financial literacy than the general population"

Texas spent 4 years embracing Bitcoin mining Now they have lower power prices than any other state New York spent years gaslighting, vilifying and regulating against Bitcoin mining Now they need to ask people to conserve more power

You’ve probably seen GreenpeaceUSA's Bitcoin report by now, and my response (if you haven't been blocked). Here’s six things that every environmentalist, Bitcoin advocate, regulator, policymaker and media representative should know about GreenpeaceUSA. I've had this information for over a year, but have held back on going public with it until now because there were initially signs that GreenpeaceUSA would be open to engaging with environmentalists within the Bitcoin community. With them now blocking me from commenting on their posts, all hope of that has now ended. So here's what I can tell you about GreenpeaceUSA, and their campaign that have not been aired publicly until now, and which may surprise you. Firstly, some context: I’m a former volunteer environmental campaigner with Greenpeace. I once risked arrest to stand up for causes I believed in, including an anti-GMO campaign against McDonalds which was successful within 6 weeks, and hailed as an example of how creative direct action can yield fast results. One of the differences: we talked to McDonalds (something no one at GreenpeaceUSA is currently doing with the Bitcoin community). I know a number of people in the environmental movement, and I would like to thank them for their honesty in whistleblowing on a thoroughly misguided campaign from GreenpeaceUSA from start to finish. 1. GreenpeaceUSA’s campaign does NOT have the backing of Greenpeace International. In fact, other branches have asked questions of GreenpeaceUSA’s tactics, and even said that their campaign is damaging the Greenpeace brand, and has resulted in the loss of subscriptions. 2. Within GreenpeaceUSA, there are a growing number of voices of discontent. There is a growing division between some of the younger crypto-neutral or crypto-friendly millennial in their base, and the directorship of GreenpeaceUSA 3. As we know, GreenpeaceUSA did receive a $5Million donation from Ripple’s chair Chris Larsen to run an anti-Bitcoin campaign. What you probably do not know is that within Greenpeace, several staff have questioned whether this is ethical, or in the spirit of an organization that says it relies only on grassroots funding in its sign-up pledge. 4. Some members of EWG and SierraClub, particularly younger members, were not enamoured with their organization’s collusion with GreenpeaceUSA’s “Change the Code” campaign. EWG has not engaged in anti-Bitcoin rhetoric since 6 April ‘23. 5. The head of GreenpeaceUSA’s “Change the Code” campaign has stepped down and is no longer any part of GreenpeaceUSA. At the time of his stepping down he was reported by a source within GreenpeaceUSA to be questioning the wisdom of the campaign. 6. Within GreenpeaceUSA, we know from multiple inside sources that the Change the Code campaign has been widely acknowledged to have been “not particularly successful”. GreenpeaceUSA’s campaign got off on the wrong foot right from the start, by antagonising environmentalists within the Bitcoin community, such as me. Here’s its half-time report (TL;DR, the worst performing environmental campaign I’ve ever witnessed). bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/… Now, the campaign is in more disarray than ever, resorting to tenuous ad hominem attacks against Satoshi Action, based on the discover that one of their supporters is a climate denier. True. Well, guess what: one of their supporters is also a plant-based, tree-hugging, climate-activist & meditation teacher: me. That’s the beauty of Bitcoin: it pulls people in from across the political spectrum: we are as diverse as society itself, and that’s what makes us strong. As I wrote recently, “when the ship you’re standing on is sinking: it doesn’t matter if you’re on the left of right side of it.” I hoped GreenpeaceUSA would end their anti-Bitcoin campaign before their credibility and relevance to the new generation of millennials they are currently disenfranchising is completely severed. But it seems at the moment they are more intent on doubling down on misinformation. Their leadership must change for them to ever have hope of becoming a true voice for the environment again.