“Zaps are wonderful.” – @Ben Arc on Mr. Obnoxious⚡ Yes, they are!! 🙌
As bitcoin enters Q4 2024, investors ask: Is this time different? Global adoption, institutional interest, and supply factors could drive the next market cycle. My latest piece in Forbes. Big thanks to @npub1r00t...sqe8 and the Bitcoin Strategy Platform for allowing me to use their charts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/10/06/how-this-bitcoin-bull-market-cycle-stands-out/
In ongoing efforts to promote accuracy in media reporting on Bitcoin, I've partnered with the Digital Assets Research Institute (DARI) to draft a detailed rebuttal to a misleading BBC article published on 30 November 2023. The BBC’s formal response to my complaint showed a disappointing disregard for the substantial evidence and expert analysis provided. To understand the context behind their dismissive reply, you can read the full text here: The article by Chris Vallance from November 2023 relied heavily on Alex de Vries-Gao commentary, which lacks a foundation in solid research. The lack of rigor in the BBC’s approach and their reliance on a single, debunked perspective—such as de Vries’s—compromises the integrity of their reporting and spreads misinformation. https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1837045695083082162 DARI’s experts crafted a rebuttal addressing each of the BBC's and de Vries’s points with precision. We're asking for a retraction of any claims based on de Vries’s debunked work, or at the very least, a public acknowledgment of our concerns. The claim that "every Bitcoin payment uses a swimming pool of water" is not just scientifically inaccurate, but also misleading. These types of claims lack methodological soundness. It has been incredibly challenging to raise this concern, as the BBC has continuously tied me up in bureaucracy. We’re urging the BBC to correct their narrative and provide a more balanced view of Bitcoin's environmental impact. Media accountability and accurate reporting should remain at the forefront of the Bitcoin conversation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/09/09/new-research-shows-bitcoin-mining-cuts-carbon-emissions/
Following up with BBC. Evidence previously overlooked has been resubmitted, and further research will be provided in collaboration with the Digital Assets Research Institute to push for a necessary retraction. I have requested that the case remain open. View quoted note → image
I've had a response from the BBC, and they're doubling down, further proving how difficult it is to hold the BBC accountable for their misinformation. Here’s a short summary on their response: Flawed Metrics: The BBC relies on Alex de Vries' debunked "per transaction" metric to assess Bitcoin's environmental impact, despite Cambridge University disproving this methodology as early as 2018. The BBC ignored credible research that highlights the fundamental flaws in de Vries' study, failing to fact-check before publishing. https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1834671256299257876  Misleading Headline: The BBC admitted to using "payment" and "transaction" interchangeably in their headline, allegedly to make it more accessible to readers. However, this distinction is critical—confusing the two leads to gross overestimation of Bitcoin's water use by a factor of 1000x or more. This misrepresentation is not a small error; it's misinformation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67564205  Undisclosed Conflict of Interest: De Vries works for the Dutch Central Bank, which has a vested interest in discrediting Bitcoin, yet the BBC did not disclose this conflict. Central banks stand to lose from decentralised finance systems, making de Vries’ affiliation highly relevant and worth disclosing. The BBC dismissed this concern outright. Impartiality in Question: Despite claiming impartiality, the BBC consistently fails to provide balanced reporting on Bitcoin. This article is just one of many examples, amplifying flawed studies while ignoring counter-evidence and perpetuating a one-sided narrative. Broken Complaint Process: Beyond the article’s provable flaws, which have been dismissed by the editorial complaints team, I can’t even respond to the email I received. The BBC’s process forces me to deliver responses over the phone, making it more difficult to address these serious issues. Accountability feels impossible. https://x.com/DecentraSuze/status/1834669804923322843  This isn’t just about bitcoin. It’s about journalistic standards and the integrity of the information that the public relies on. We need to demand better fact-checking, transparency, and accountability from organisations like the BBC. The links they have provided in support of their response are provided below: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949790623000046 📄.pdf https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines 
If you haven't seen Dirty Coin The Movie, I recommend that you do. For those unfamiliar, it's a bitcoin mining documentary that investigates the often misunderstood industry. The film dissects environmental debates, energy consumption myths, and the behind-the-scenes realities of mining operations. It is beautifully crafted and appeals to a wide audience, not just for its cinematic beauty, but for the compelling story it tells and the thought-provoking issues it addresses. I've seen it twice and I'll see it for a third time in November. There are screenings worldwide; here is a schedule if you want to see if there is a screening near you. 🎬 Dirty Coin Upcoming Screenings: 📍 Washington D.C. 🗓 Sept 23, 2024 🎟 📍 NYC 🗓 Sept 25, 2024 🎟 📍 Baxter 🗓 Sept 28, 2024 🎟 📍 Montreal 🗓 Oct 02, 2024 🎟 📍 Amsterdam 🗓 Oct 08, 2024 🎟 📍 South Carolina 🗓 Oct 17, 2024 🎟 It's so worth a watch, and it won the Best Movie award at the Bitcoin Film Festival in Warsaw earlier this year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/04/24/bitcoin-halving-party-unites-art-and-tech-at-warsaw-bitcoin-filmfest/ @Dirty Coin: The Bitcoin Mining Documentary This is not a paid promotion, I’m just a huge fan of the film! 😁⚡️💕
I absolutely loved penning my column, “MyTwo Sats,” for CityAM. It was a dream come true to rant about the complexities of money, economics, and how bitcoin could fix it. It was aimed at London’s city workers—from bankers to brokers. I also had the privilege of collaborating with an incredibly talented (and anonymous) bitcoin artist who transformed my words into art. This article explores the critical link between energy and money—a foundational aspect of any economy. By reconnecting money to real-world assets like energy, bitcoin is proposing a theoretical fix and offering a practical pathway to sustainable, fair economic practices. But I know you guys already get it; hopefully, a few more people in the City of London will catch on now too. image
Just wanted to share an exciting update! For those who don’t know me, I’m the Co-founder, Director, and Head of Mining & Energy at Bitcoin Policy UK. The UK is embarrassingly behind the curve when it comes to bitcoin adoption and mining. To help change that, we’ve been quietly collecting S9s for a top-secret project. We’re reviewing sites across the UK to develop innovative business models using bitcoin mining. Our aim is to raise funds to create proof-of-concept projects that use stranded energy to power local agriculture and factories. If you’ve got a few sats to spare, we’d greatly appreciate the support by donating to our Geyser Fund. 🧡⚡️ @Geyser
The Silent Attack on British Democracy? My Reflections from the Front Line of the CBDC Debate As the co-founder, director, and Head of Mining and Energy at Bitcoin Policy UK, I've monitored the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies through countless panels and forums over the last 18 months. Historically, my calls for a balanced debate on CBDCs were met with scepticism, often dismissed by both The Digital Pound Foundation and the Bank of England, which refused to engage. However, a shift occurred recently. In July, the Digital Pound Foundation invited my co-founder and Head of Policy, Freddie New ( @npub1wl39...znlx ), to speak at one of their panels. Freddie brought fresh insights to the panel, including Chaumian eCash, emphasising the need for a balanced debate. Our latest event, "CBDCs: The Silent Attack on British Democracy?" held at The Legatum Institute, brought these issues into sharper focus. David Rennie from the Digital Pound Foundation attended—an act of bravery given the room's unanimous scepticism towards CBDCs. Previously, we had been sidelined from such discussions by the Foundation. David, while a proponent of CBDCs, shares many of our privacy concerns, acknowledging the issues of media manipulation and the commoditisation of personal data. His openness to our perspectives on privacy was refreshing, though I find it slightly naïve. Individuals like David are well-intentioned, even if influenced by centralised control. David stressed that the UK's CBDC design is still under discussion. He values programmability and believes it is essential for addressing issues like money laundering. While we diverge on the necessity and potential overreach of CBDCs, finding common ground on many aspects, differing primarily in our faith in the governance systems, was reassuring. Last night's event reinforced that meaningful dialogue is possible. We must recognise the nuanced positions of individuals like David, navigating complex issues with genuine intent for public good. David supports a digital pound that is well-designed in terms of its technical, operational, and governance structures. Although I remain sceptical given the track record of other countries and the apparent lack of understanding from our institutions, it gave me hope to see his good intentions. We will continue to advocate for a financial framework that respects individual liberties and addresses the risks of centralisation. The journey is long, but the dialogue at events like these ensures that all voices, however critical, are part of shaping the future of our financial systems. CBDCs still concern me deeply, and I will do everything in my power to oppose them. It was reassuring to know there are well-intentioned people on the other side, however misguided. Through all these discussions and conferences, one thing remains crystal clear to me: Bitcoin is inevitable, and I have no doubt it. None of the proposed solutions even come close to matching its potential. ⚡️ https://www.cityam.com/opinion-the-public-must-be-correctly-informed-over-hunts-roadmap-for-a-cbdc-or-face-the-prospect-of-spycoin/
Matriarchies tend to prioritise community and shared power, while patriarchies are typically more hierarchical. Is there evidence that one produces better societal outcomes?