The New York Times’ marketing campaign in opposition to bitcoin rages on. Even although this time they had the right alternative to write a balanced article, they didn’t. The writer studies one optimistic bitcoin mining story after one other, whereas preserving a snooty perspective and suggesting it’s all a PR transfer. The title summarizes the New York Times’ stance, “Bitcoin Miners Want to Recast Themselves as Eco-Friendly.”
Related Reading | Valkyrie Bitcoin Mining ETF “WGMI” Approved For Nasdaq Listing
Before we get into it, a fast story. The foremost knowledgeable in bitcoin’s power consumption, Nic Carter, revealed an exhaustive report on mining. Among different issues, it contained laborious information that confirmed to what extent China was mining utilizing hydropower power. Mainstream media largely ignored it. The celebration line was that we couldn’t belief China’s statistics. And, that China was most likely burning cole.
Fast ahead to final month. China banned bitcoin mining some time in the past and bitcoin’s hashrate relocated, recovered, whereas the community functioned completely all through. Most of China’s mining business relocated to inexperienced energy-abundant nations. What did the New York Times submit? An article known as “China Banished Cryptocurrencies. Now, ‘Mining’ Is Even Dirtier,” that claims that Chinese miners had been utilizing hydropower power and thus used cleaner power.
That’s the extent of propaganda we’re coping with.
What Did The New York Times Say About Bitcoin Mining This Time?
The article begins by that includes Argo Blockchain, the corporate is constructing a brand new facility that “would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy.” They even quote Peter Wall, Argo CEO, saying. “This is Bitcoin mining nirvana. You look off into the distance and you’ve got your renewable power.” What could possibly be incorrect with that?
Two paragraphs later, the New York Times begins pushing lies and embarrassing numbers:
“A single Bitcoin transaction now requires more than 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, or enough energy to power the average American household for 73 days, researchers estimate.”
Of course, these ridiculous claims come from Digiconomist, a extensively debunked researcher who occurs to be an worker of the Dutch Central Bank. And then, they blatantly quote the malicious research talked about within the intro.
“The Bitcoin network’s use of green energy sources also dropped to an average of 25 percent in August 2021 from 42 percent in 2020. (The industry has argued that its average renewable use is closer to 60 percent.) That’s partly a result of China’s crackdown, which cut off a source of cheap hydropower.”
And quote Alex de Vries, one of many research’s authors, being fully off the mark. “What a miner is going to do if they want to maximize the profit is put their machine wherever it can run the entire day.” WHAT? To maximize revenue, a miner is going to discover the most affordable supply of power attainable. Energy is their greatest price. The least expensive supply attainable is power that’s at the moment being wasted. That’s the state of affairs.
BTC value chart for 03/26/2022 on Forex.com | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com
More Feel-Good Stories Framed As Bad News
The New York Times even quotes Paul Prager, TeraWulf CEO, saying “Everyone I talk to now is talking about carbon neutrality. The language has absolutely changed.” And then, the newspaper spreads the excellent news.
“TeraWulf, has pledged to run cryptocurrency mines using more than 90 percent zero-carbon energy. It has two projects in the works — a retired coal plant in upstate New York fueled by hydropower, and a nuclear-powered facility in Pennsylvania.”
None of those tales are celebrated. Remember the article’s title, they are cynically offered as PR stunts. Then, it´s time for Sangha Systems, who “repurposed an old steel mill in the town of Hennepin. Sangha is run by a former lawyer, Spencer Marr, who says he founded the company to promote clean energy. But about half the Hennepin operation’s power comes from fossil fuels.”
The New York Times Closes The Loop
That’s the worst instance that the New York Times might discover. An individual who “founded the company to promote clean energy” however had to make a compromise to begin his enterprise. To shut the article, the writer brings us again to Argo Blockchain and tries to pull one thing comparable. Apparently, the CEO “can’t guarantee that Argo’s new center will have no carbon footprint. That would require bypassing the grid and buying energy directly from a renewable power company.”
Related Reading | Biden Loves Intel’s Plan To Produce Semiconductors. What About Bitcoin Mining?
And then, they quote him once more. “A lot of those renewable energy producers are still a little bit skeptical of cryptocurrency. The crypto miners don’t have the credit profiles to sign 10- or 15-year deals.”
So, Argo is actually making an attempt but it surely’s not attainable in the meanwhile for comprehensible causes. And the entire business is shifting to a greener path as a result of the incentives are aligned that approach. Got it, New York Times. Got it.
Featured Image by tacskooo on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView
