The New York Times’ project versus bitcoin raves on. Even though this time they had the best chance to compose a well balanced short article, they didn’t. The author reports one favorable bitcoin mining story after another, while keeping a snooty mindset and recommending it’s all a PR relocation. The title sums up the New York Times’ position, “Bitcoin Miners Want to Recast Themselves as Eco-Friendly.”
Related Reading | Valkyrie Bitcoin Mining ETF “WGMI” Approved For Nasdaq Listing
Before we enter into it, a fast story. The primary professional in bitcoin’s energy intake, Nic Carter, released an exhaustive report on mining. Among other things, it consisted of difficult information that revealed to what degree China was mining utilizing hydropower energy. Mainstream media mostly overlooked it. The celebration line was that we couldn’t rely on China’s data. And, that China was most likely burning cole.
Fast forward to last month. China prohibited bitcoin mining a while back and bitcoin’s hashrate moved, recuperated, while the network operated completely throughout. Most of China’s mining market moved to green energy-abundant nations. What did the New York Times post? An short article called “China Banished Cryptocurrencies. Now, ‘Mining’ Is Even Dirtier,” that declares that Chinese miners were utilizing hydropower energy and hence utilized cleaner energy.
That’s the level of propaganda we’re handling.
What Did The New York Times Say About Bitcoin Mining This Time?
The short article begins by including Argo Blockchain, the business is constructing a brand-new center that “would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy.” They even quote Peter Wall, Argo CEO, stating. “This is Bitcoin mining nirvana. You look off into the distance and you’ve got your renewable power.” What could be incorrect with that?
Two paragraphs later on, the New York Times begins pressing lies and humiliating 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, those absurd claims originate from Digiconomist, an extensively exposed scientist who takes place to be a staff member of the Dutch Central Bank. And then, they blatantly price estimate the harmful research study pointed out in the introduction.
“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, among the research study’s authors, being entirely 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 make the most of revenue, a miner is going to discover the most affordable source of energy possible. Energy is their greatest expense. The most affordable source possible is energy that’s presently being squandered. That’s the circumstance.
BTC cost 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, stating “Everyone I talk to now is talking about carbon neutrality. The language has absolutely changed.” And then, the paper spreads out the bright side.
“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 these stories are commemorated. Remember the short article’s title, they are cynically provided 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 example that the New York Times might discover. An individual who “founded the company to promote clean energy” however needed to make a compromise to begin his company. To close the short article, the author brings us back to Argo Blockchain and attempts to pull something 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 estimate him once again. “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 truly attempting however it’s not possible at the minute for easy to understand factors. And the entire market is relocating to a greener course due to the fact that the rewards are lined up that method. Got it, New York Times. Got it.
Featured Image by tacskooo on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView