Here's a short history of people who have publicly attacked Bitcoin, and how it is going for them: Tim Buckley (ex-CEO Vanugard, who missed the Bitcoin ETF): gone Matthew Sparks (New Scientist journalist who wrote hitpieces about Bitcoin): ratioed, community noted, Twitter account deactivated Sierra Club/Earthjustice (wrote attack pieces on Bitcoin and energy): rebutted, have ended Bitcoin attacks. GreenpeaceUSA (funded by Ripple Chair Chris Larson to run an anti-Bitcoin campaign): bleeding subs, head of campaign left, @changethecode twitter handle and website inactive, campaign acknowledged internally as "having only succeeded in uniting Bitcoiners against us". internal factions and recriminations Senator Warren (attacked Bitcoin using multiple attack vectors): ratioed, community noted, told by her own party to shut it, anti-crypto "army" revealed to be a handful of academics and non-practicing lawyers. Political influence diminished Alex de Vries/Digiconomist: PhD student/ employee of central bank DNB who wrote junk-science hit-pieces on Bitcoin: methods utterly discredited in peer reviewed research. Losing followers. No activity on Twitter in 5 months. Now writing hitpieces on AI Sam Bankman Fried (bribed politicians, stole customer funds, publicly attacked Bitcoin): in jail Ben McKenzie (Actor, who tried his hand at attacking Bitcoin): Twitter followers plateaued then started reducing as he started attacking Bitcoin. Currently losing followers every day. Gone from media spotlight. Other Journalists who've attacked Bitcoin: ratioed, credibility called to question, rebutted, unable to issue a rebuttal defence It's now becoming clear that history will remember those who attacked Bitcoin in the same pantheon of people who dismissed the Internet: ignorant, uninformed and wrong. Will be interesting to see who else puts up their hand to be on the wrong side of history. Right now, its only GreenpeaceUSA, the EU, and a diminishing handful of journalists

Dear @stripe We get that you care about decarbonization, and also that you have some seriously smart researchers working for you. So with that combination, there really is no excuse in 2024 for still believing that Bitcoin is anti-ESG. So before you cancel the very people who could be helping you - how about a little more research? My DMs are open if you want to chat. I also invite you to check out Batcoinz.com, and my free newsletter (see my X bio) that documents why Bitcoin mining is more likely to help than hinder your decarbonization goals. Sincerely Daniel Batten Climatetech investor @patrickc

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.

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! 🧵