Skip to content
Pico y Pala – Bitcoins, Ethereum, Ripple,…

Elon Musk And The Dutch Central Financial institution’s Misinformation Marketing campaign


The 2 environmental FUDsters might probably mislead bitcoin traders as they make the most of incorrect evaluation.

Greater than a decade after Satoshi Nakamoto mixed proof of labor and bitcoin mining collectively, fallacious comparisons of “vitality price per transaction” proceed to be unfold by seemingly clever and well-researched people.

We are able to hint a lot of the unfold of this narrative again to Alex de Vries—an information scientist who goes by the deal with “Digiconomist” and is cited in almost each anti-bitcoin vitality article and op-ed within the mainstream media. There’s only one downside. Neither he, nor many of the journalists that cite him, commonly disclose that his employer is De Nederlandsche Financial institution (DNB), the Dutch Central Financial institution, which is an simple opponent of bitcoin and open cost rails. It’s irresponsible for journalists to quote de Vries, or his work, with out disclosing his battle of curiosity. He’s successfully a DNB lobbyist.

De Vries’s work for the DNB focuses on monetary financial crime. In 2020 the DNB required controversial and overly aggressive KYC laws for digital asset corporations serving the Netherlands. Amongst different issues, the regulation required customers show they management their withdrawal deal with. The rule was reversed final week, in courtroom, after Bitonic formally complained. The DNB can be main CBDC growth and integration in Europe.

De Vries’ web site, Digiconomist, described as a “interest mission,” apparently misleads readers by failing to reveal his employment. The location makes use of unreasonable assumptions and misleading infographics about so-called “Single Bitcoin Transaction Footprints.”

This has led others to give you equally deceptive transaction-based comparisons to erroneously declare which altcoins use the least quantity of electrical energy as a perform of utility.

In March, Invoice Gates repeated this FUD, which was then echoed by the media utilizing de Vries’s personal deceptive information. Extra lately, Elon Musk grew to become the most recent to unfold misinformation when he tweeted that Tesla would now not settle for bitcoin as cost for automobiles.

“We’re involved about quickly growing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, particularly coal, which has the worst emissions of any gasoline…We’re additionally taking a look at different cryptocurrencies that use <1 of Bitcoin’s vitality/transaction.” 
Supply: Twitter

After crashing the market, which coincided with some suspicious buying and selling exercise, he adopted up:

“Power utilization pattern over previous few months is insane” 
Supply: Twitter

Though we are able to’t know what Musk was truly considering, if Musk had bothered to learn the Cambridge Bitcoin Electrical energy Consumption Index (CBECI’s) FAQ, then he would have discovered that “vitality price per transaction” is a false impression.

The favored “vitality price per transaction” metric is commonly featured within the media and different tutorial research regardless of having a number of points.

First, transaction throughput (i.e. the variety of transactions that the system can course of) is unbiased of the community’s electrical energy consumption. Including extra mining gear and thus growing electrical energy consumption may have no impression on the variety of processed transactions.

Second, a single Bitcoin transaction can comprise hidden semantics that will not be instantly seen nor intelligible to observers. As an example, one transaction can embody lots of of funds to particular person addresses, settle second-layer community funds (e.g. opening and shutting channels within the Lightning community), or probably signify billions of timestamped information factors utilizing open protocols equivalent to OpenTimestamps.

Supply: CBECI | FAQ

The CBECI even goes a step additional, dispelling frequent mainstream local weather narratives.

There’s presently little proof suggesting that Bitcoin straight contributes to local weather change. Even when assuming that Bitcoin mining was solely powered by coal – a really unrealistic situation given {that a} non-trivial variety of services run solely on renewables – complete carbon dioxide emissions wouldn’t exceed 58 million tons of CO2, which might roughly correspond to 0.17% of the world’s complete emissions.

This isn’t to say that environmental considerations relating to Bitcoin’s electrical energy consumption must be disregarded. There are legitimate considerations that Bitcoin’s rising electrical energy consumption could pose a risk to reaching the United Nations Sustainable Growth Targets sooner or later.

Nevertheless, present figures must be put into perspective: out there information exhibits that even within the worst case (i.e. mining solely powered by coal), Bitcoin’s environmental footprint presently stays marginal at greatest.

Supply: CBECI | FAQ

Adam Again, creator of Proof of Work, made an effort to set the document straight:

“Doge is years unmaintained, a literal joke copy of outdated model of bitcoin with lengthy recognized vulnerabilities. Factually #Bitcoin would not eat incremental energy per transaction. And has layer2s like lightning and @Liquid_BTC which amplify capabilities.”

Supply: Twitter

It makes no distinction what number of transactions happen on a proof-of-work blockchain. A single bitcoin transaction might, in principle, present closing settlement for a Layer 2 channel that contained tens of millions of transactions.

Moreover, the vitality spent on mining every block is not simply producing a transaction, it is securing each transaction that ever got here earlier than it. That vitality is securing the entire transactions which have ever occurred within the historical past of Bitcoin — together with Elon Musk’s personal private transactions in addition to the previous transactions that led to these transactions.

Michael Saylor additionally tried to assist make clear Musk’s misconceptions:

“The estimated electrical energy consumption per YTD elevated 40% throughout the identical interval that the community grew 100% in property, that means that vitality effectivity dramatically improved throughout this time interval. #Bitcoin is changing into much less vitality intensive because it scales.”

Supply: Twitter

Musk replied by tweeting out three URLs. The primary hyperlink was in regards to the Greenidge energy plant in upstate New York, that got here again on-line to mine bitcoin with pure gasoline. Nic Carter later did the analysis that Musk and mainstream journalists ought to have carried out within the first place:

MSM narrative:

– previous coal energy vegetation are coming again on-line to mine BTC


– Greenidge plant is natgas, not coal powered (a lot decrease carbon depth)

– the plant is shopping for full carbon offsets

– Greenidge is generally feeding the grid, powering 1000s of native properties

This can be a cornerstone of the brand new hostile protection round bitcoin and you may even see this speaking level about “decommissioned coal vegetation coming again on-line to mine BTC” lots of of instances. Just one downside: it’s fully false.

That is principally a “Saddam has yellowcake” tier misrepresentation, merely egregiously incorrect.

Supply: Twitter

The second hyperlink was a one-sided interview with de Vries, and the third hyperlink closely featured de Vries as effectively. Once more, neither of those hyperlinks disclosed the truth that de Vries is employed by a central financial institution that opposes Bitcoin.

Musk quickly pivoted his misinformed take to announce that he’s supposedly “working with Doge devs” on maybe adopting it as a inexperienced cost different — a doubtful declare given the mission has been largely deserted. His feedback solely served to perpetuate the “vitality per transaction” delusion.

It isn’t simply Musk and de Vries which are perpetuating “vitality per transaction” deception, as Doge supporters have been touting equally deceptive analysis from TRG Datacenters which claims that Litecoin makes use of 18.5 KWh per transaction, and Dogecoin makes use of 0.12 KWh per transaction.

Power consumption has nothing to do with what number of transactions are mined in a block. Power consumption is said to coin issuance and miner profitability, not variety of transactions. Nic Carter defined:

“Right now, bitcoin miners earn round $50 million/day, which annualizes to round $18.2 billion in miner income. Absolutely 85% of that income derives not from per-transaction charges, however from the issuance of recent bitcoins. This issuance course of is finite: actually, it’s 88.7% carried out. The speed of recent coin issuance halves each 4 years because it approaches that 21 million restrict. (These are the “halvings” you’ve gotten most likely heard about. Bitcoiners actually love them.)

So the issuance element of miner income is *structurally decaying over time*. Except you consider that the value of bitcoin goes to actually double in actual phrases each 4 years till 2140, that expenditure (and therefore vitality utilization) goes to say no.”

Supply: Nic Carter | CoinDesk

Power required to resolve advanced random guesses cannot be faked, which makes proof of labor an especially truthful, impartial and impenetrable physics-based strategy to situation new cash and safe networks.

Should you perceive that vitality expenditures are a perform of miner profitability, and never the variety of transactions, you possibly can start to grasp that Doge’s declare of low-energy footprint per transaction is fully deceptive.

Ari Paul defined in a Q&A:

Ari Paul: …electrical energy isn’t used for transaction processing. It’s used to safe the community. Doge is PoW that means it faces the identical fundamental dynamics as Bitcoin. It makes use of much less electrical energy now as a result of it’s much less safe.

Q: Due to DOGE’s limitless provide, it worth has “some” ceiling. Attributable to which there’s additionally ceiling for miner profitability past which miners wont add extra hash fee to community which might hold the electrical energy consumption beneath a hard and fast most fee. Is that this incorrect?

Ari Paul: I feel that’s correct – principally something that depresses a POW’s token worth may also depress its safety and electrical energy utilization, at the least typically.

Q: Only for clarification, miserable POW token worth reduces safety due to inherent miner reward discount.. i.e.: much less miners -> much less community scale (much less electrical energy utilization) -> much less safety. Recognize the perception?

Ari Paul: Mainly sure. Issue of the community adjusts with hashpower. Miners are rewarded in tokens and can hold investing in hashpower (inflicting increased issue) so long as it’s worthwhile. Increased token worth helps extra funding in hashpower.

Supply: Twitter

So, if profitability and better token worth drives on-chain vitality consumption, one can clearly see that Doge would endure the identical elevated vitality consumption if it have been to ever grow to be the success Musk suggests it may very well be.

Paradoxically, Doge doesn’t clear up the issues that Musk is anxious about. Digital foreign money miner/investor De Flandres (@Pacifica2525) additional defined the misconceptions of Doge mining in a sequence of tweets.

On Musk claiming he arrange “some little Doge mining rigs”:

There isn’t a such factor as a “Dogecoin mining machine.” It’s referred to as a Scrypt miner, which mines predominantly Litecoin, since Dogecoin in merge-mined with Litecoin.

Supply: Twitter

On the TRG Datacenter analysis claiming Doge has a low “vitality per transaction” footprint:

It’s all about numbers is not it. On common, an Antminer (or equivalence) consumes 0.800 to 0.950 KwH of juice processing blocks. The numbers above are bogus. You even have to grasp that “confirmations” proceed indefinitely. If at the moment miners every mine 1 block of LTC and 1 block of Doge, then each will eat equal quantities of energy. If the identical miners mine 25 blocks of LTC and 10 blocks of Doge, then Doge used much less energy. The issue is {that a} Doge block is mined each minute, whereas an LTC block is mined each 2.5 minutes, so in impact, miners must mine 2.5 extra Doge blocks than LTC, making Doge extra miner dependent. In different phrases, Doge is much less miner environment friendly. In order Doge curiosity/exercise will increase, there are much less empty blocks processed by scrypt miners. If this dialog was happening a yr in the past, an argument may very well be made that Doge makes use of much less vitality, as a result of there have been extra empty blocks. # of blocks is at all times 1 each minute for Doge. 

Supply: Twitter

Dogecoin is PoW solely as a result of Litecoin/scrypt is PoW, and that mining machine, assuming L3+ or L3++, remains to be utilizing 0.800+ KwH of juice whether or not it’s underneath heavy or mild load, mining LTC and Doge collectively. So, the declare Doge makes use of much less is essentially a lie.

Supply: Twitter

One Dogecoin block is created each minute. There’s 1 LTC block created each 2.5 minutes. Each = scrypt cash. Each are mined on the identical machines. The extra widespread Doge turns into, the upper the value, the upper the issue, the extra intense the mining, the extra vitality used.

Supply: Twitter

On Musk claiming to work with Doge devs to enhance its ageing protocol:

“…Dogecoin is a merge-mined coin with Litecoin…. the identical scrypt miners who personal the entire {hardware}. So, who’s he working with once more? Change the protocol and it ceases to be mined by Litecoin miners. They must hard-fork the coin. Have enjoyable with that.”

Supply: Twitter

“Litecoin would not ‘assist’ safe Dogecoin’s blockchain, it principally ‘owns’ Dogecoin’s blockchain, as a result of till lately, no miners would ever mine simply Doge. It was a dropping proposition. Now, it might be extra worthwhile, but it surely nonetheless is a byproduct of Litecoin mining.”

Supply: Twitter

“Piss off the Litecoin/scrypt miners and Doge takes a everlasting dive.”

Supply: Twitter

“Good luck attempting to mine on their very own. It’s a must to have the miners, which haven’t been manufactured now for almost 2 years. These which can be found are used, on eBay, and costly, with break-even round 2 years.”

Supply: Twitter

Moreover, Galaxy Digital printed analysis highlighting the poor high quality of the Doge community. So, why would Musk get behind an unmaintained altcoin?

Q: Why not simply make a crypto from scratch that does all the pieces you need technically and has a whole lot of dev help and doesn’t have excessive focus of possession at the least initially?

Elon Musk: Provided that Doge can’t do it. Huge ache within the neck to create one other one.

Supply: Twitter

It’s probably that Musk is referring to the challenges that Fb confronted, when it tried to launch Libra. Mark Zuckerburg was famously hauled earlier than Congress and stonewalled with regulation.

It might be much less of a headache to make use of Bitcoin or every other fashionable mission. Turning Doge right into a excessive pace centralized cost coin would set off a tough fork from Litecoin, which would go away Doge by itself with few Scrypt miners. Musk might then create his personal Scrypt miners and put them in all of his merchandise, however that may simply flip it right into a centralized personal cost community. One can solely assume that he would somewhat meme his personal coin into existence versus coping with regulators and purple tape. In fact, he might simply implement bitcoin funds and Layer 2 applied sciences, like everybody else.

It stays to be seen if Musk is deliberately spreading misinformation or if he’s affected by the Dunning-Kruger impact. Current tweets from Musk counsel the latter, as he appears to lack the elemental understanding of how decentralized techniques work or why they’re mandatory. Regardless, it’s tough to inform what Musk’s true motives are.

When the false “vitality per transaction” narratives which are unfold by central financial institution economist de Vries, Musk and Doge supporters will be simply debunked by studying the CBECI’s personal FAQ, it is not tough to see it’s a hustle.

Clever funding groups are in a position to look previous these false narratives. The Sustainable Thematic Equities group at AllianceBernstein printed an informative put up on Bitcoin from an ESG perspective:

…We consider considerations in regards to the high-energy depth of bitcoin mining are overstated, and the know-how can play a less-acknowledged however essential function in selling monetary inclusion. Supply: AllianceBernstein | Is Bitcoin ESG Pleasant for Fairness Buyers?

ARK Make investments additionally reiterated agency help for Bitcoin:

In our view, the considerations round Bitcoin’s vitality consumption are misguided. Opposite to consensus considering, we consider the impression of bitcoin mining might grow to be a internet constructive to the setting. With real-world information, we show how mining might impression the quantity of renewable vitality provisioned to the grid by reworking intermittent energy sources into baseload era by means of vitality storage. We illustrate that renewables would have the ability to fulfill solely 40% of the grid’s wants within the absence of Bitcoin mining however 99% with the industrial “subsidies” related to bitcoin mining.

Supply: ARK Make investments

The vitality spent on Bitcoin is the unassailable bodily finances for securing your entire monetary community. Different proof-of-work initiatives claiming decrease vitality budgets are solely touting decrease ranges of safety and far decrease ranges of use, whereas attempting to tug a quick one on non-seasoned traders.

Musk and altcoin supporters look like unaware that it might be nearly unimaginable to breed the impartial and truthful launch of Bitcoin, in addition to its astounding community results around the globe and safe observe document over the previous decade. If it have been even doable to breed Bitcoin’s launch, any tried altcoin can be a decade behind find vulnerabilities, a decade behind in community results, a decade behind in its confirmed observe document and a decade behind in proving its immutability as sound cash. It might lack the credibility essential to grow to be a safe and world reserve asset.

Proof of stake and different newly developed protocols are nonetheless unproven experiments that can require years of testing and scrutiny, which are likely to lack distribution and launch equity. These experiments aren’t the sorts of protocols your entire world desires backing up the following world reserve asset. Nobody of their proper thoughts chooses to have one’s life financial savings, or an organization’s treasury, guarded by a low safety finances based mostly on belief. Establishments and people need the most safety finances, with a near-zero probability of failure, for his or her helpful and hard-earned life financial savings.

Bitcoin supplies safety that no different asset can by bridging the bodily and digital world with proof of labor. It’s the most safe vitality finances on the face of the planet, backed by physics, and value each joule that flows into it.

This can be a visitor put up by Level39. Opinions expressed are fully their very own and don’t essentially mirror these of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Journal.