The death of Bitcoin gaslighting in the mainstream media
Using Litmaps, was possible to see that the origin of all junk science on Bitcoin's environmental impact was a single commentary by Alex de Vries. (A commentary is a short paper that puts forward an author's perspective but does not have to use novel empirical data, and which typically goes through a lighter peer review process).
The method he used to claim that Bitcoin's environmental damage was a growing concern was his fundamentally flawed "energy use per transactions" method (Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions, therefore it can scale transaction volume exponentially without increasing emissions).
de Vries' metric has now been debunked in 4 academic journals
*Masanet et al 2019
*Dittmar et al. 2019
*Sedlmeir et al, 2020
*Sai and Vraken 2023
The entirety of de Vries' work was systematically debunked by Sai and Vranken in late 2023
source:https://lnkd.in/gMa_g872
That's why 96% of mainstream media outlets (everyone except Verge
and WIRED) are no longer gaslighting Bitcoin's environmental impact. In many cases, they've even started covering Bitcoin's environmental benefits
source for 12 mainstream media outlets:
source for 8 sustainability periodicals:
There is much re-education work to do though.
Much of the population was misinformed over many years, and as a result many investment committees, regulators and policymakers still do not know that 13 of the last 15 papers support the environmental benefits of Bitcoin.
source: https://lnkd.in/gfEFFUeQ
Once they do, we will see mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, and mainstream adoption of Bitcoin mining as part of climate action (aka: what the peer reviewed research tells us it is)
source: https://lnkd.in/gTetBnYD 