Wikipedia even fell for the environment FUD around Proof-Of Work mining. A proposal to “Stop accepting donations in cryptocurrency” is currently under discussion. The argument starts with very weak arguments, which is what the mainstream media uses irresponsibly. But it’s more entertaining and interesting. In general, it’s amazing to see both sides of the argument unfolding. There might be some information suppression.
Human Rights Foundation Accepts Fully Open Source Bitcoin Donations| Human Rights Foundation Accepts Fully Open Source Bitcoin Donations
We will try to sum up the entire thing but those who are interested should make the effort to fully read the book. It’s full of twists and turns. It is written by real people, which makes it even more amazing. Wikipedia editors are not a sample of the world’s population, but, they’re heterogeneous enough to make the discussion interesting.
Wikipedia falls for the Environmental FUD
While the initial proposal has three difficulties in receiving cryptocurrency donations as it is, there are many solutions. These three points can be summarized as follows:
“Accepting cryptocurrency signals endorsement of the cryptocurrency space.”
“Cryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability.”
“We risk damaging our reputation by participating in this.”
It’s a shame that, to try to prove their points, theOriginal author uses a questionable source and a discredited one.
“Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy. You can read more about Bitcoin’s environmental impact from Columbia or Digiconomist.”
This is Counterpoint
Even though it’s widely cited, an “employee of the Dutch Central Bank” posing as a neutral journalist runs Digiconomist. This alone makes him a non-credible source. But, his data are still valid. It is also in question because “Digiconomist Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index is not being driven by real world metrics and profitability as stated in the methodology.” So, we’re dealing with an intellectually dishonest individual who’s presumably paid to attack the Bitcoin network.
For more information on this shady character, go to the section “Disinformation is the Digiconomist.”
Although the Columbia report is older, it contains outdated data and falsified studies. Like the ridiculous one that doesn’t understand how PoW scales, or even works, and irresponsibly claims that crypto-mining could raise the Earth’s temperature by two degrees. Columbia’s main source, though, is the “University of Cambridge analysis.” That same organization literally said that “There is currently little evidence suggesting that Bitcoin directly contributes to climate change.”
But they omitted that portion of their report. Now they have changed the words. Your FAQ just contains a “radical thought experiment” in which “all this energy comes exclusively from coal.” Even under those extreme circumstances, which are far-far away from reality, the energy use would be marginal. “In this worst-case scenario, the Bitcoin network would be responsible for about 111 Mt (million metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions1, accounting for roughly 0.35% of the world’s total yearly emissions.”
Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com| Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com
Protection of the Process or Information Suppression
Under the whole thread, there’s a section called “Discussion moved from proposal section.” It contains several suppressed pro-cryptocurrencies arguments. The reason is that the accounts that made them had “no other editing records”. These people are proposing to remove those opinions. That they “risk that both vote gaming and manipulation of discussion to introduce bias and fake “bitcoin” news.”
Coincidentally, those low-edit accounts are the ones bringing forward the information on how bogus the original poster’s sources are. They had to speak up. They were then removed from the main thread by administrators. This is Wikipedia?
Luckily, other Wikipedia contributors managed to say that “Bitcoin is therefore a green energy stimulus, aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. “ Another user urged “everyone to understand more about Bitcoin as a whole package beyond its energy footprint (negligible when compared to the cost in oil and warfare of backing the US Dollar) as well as the continual exponential progress that has been made in making Bitcoin greener and greener.” Yet another one said “The FLOSS of bitcoin core is the BTC project attempting to promote monetary freedom.”
The crypto-detractors might be right in trying to manipulate the vote. Except for the ridiculous “fake “bitcoin” news” claim. The header of the discussion says, “this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikimedia contributors”. And the administrator tells them that they can’t remove their opinions or votes. However, “an optimal RfC scenario would not actively silence any voices, but would allow community members to inform each other which participants are not community members, who may have alternative interests.” That’s fair.
How about the Votes? Are Crypto Donations Banned by Wikipedia?
The vote doesn’t look good for crypto donations, but that doesn’t mean Wikipedia will ban them. At the time of writing, the “support” votes are approximately double than the “oppose” ones. Additionally, around 150 Wikipedia people have voted. Do you think this means the ESG FUD failed and cast an uneasy shadow on cryptospace? Yes.
Similar Reading| New Contender Emerges Despite Wikipedia’s Begrudging Listing of Cardano
People WANT to believe. People aren’t willing to admit that PoW mining has a net environmental benefit.
Fortunately, Bitcoin doesn’t care. Next block, tick tock.
James at Unsplash Charts and TradingView| Charts by TradingView