For now, the BBC article. The problem with de Vries’ work is that it has spread like a disease.
I hope so, but at the same time, they seem so corrupt, powerful, and arrogant that I wonder if it will have any effect.
I tune in to the BBC from time to time just to hear what they have to say. Once you see past the veneer, it becomes clear that much of what they present isn’t well-researched, isn’t balanced, and is clearly pushing an agenda. It’s state media, and they need to be defunded.
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.
nostr:note15yyk6x0cnmehj80qwaftv7qpk8pgwutz5ku6s3ujvz8hcupn2k2q2rpj7c
Thank you. 🥰
It’s not over. I am going to work with these guys on a rebuttal/response…
The article needs to be retracted.
🧡🧡🧡
Hopefully that, and hopefully the people who still think the BBC are credible, will rethink.
I think there are elements that are by design, but it’s also mixed with a large amount of useful incompetence.
Sometimes I tune into the BBC just to keep an eye on them. Once you see the bullshit, you can’t unsee it. It’s pervasive.
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.
https://x.com/gladstein/status/1803507915556606200
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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines
The letter loaded in the wrong order. Please start from the last graphic/picture to read it in the correct sequence.
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.
https://x.com/gladstein/status/1803507915556606200
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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines
I think the thinking behind this business model is that there is already plenty of bitcoin mining information available for free. This way, the film preserves its uniqueness.
Awesome! Not sure if you could tell by my post, but I strongly recommend the film. 😁 😆
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.
https://www.dirtycointhemovie.com
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
🎟 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dirty-coin-the-bitcoin-mining-documentary-pubkey-tickets-1014999941147
📍 Baxter
🗓 Sept 28, 2024
📍 Montreal
🗓 Oct 02, 2024
📍 Amsterdam
🗓 Oct 08, 2024
📍 South Carolina
🗓 Oct 17, 2024
🎟 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dirty-coin-the-bitcoin-mining-documentary-tickets-1002460926617
It's so worth a watch, and it won the Best Movie award at the Bitcoin Film Festival in Warsaw earlier this year.
nostr:npub10t6ysu50tzua43y452npqh350ys408nr6k50lvjlydsgrxlv2qsq5dj94r
https://youtube.com/shorts/u02AQycCBZk?feature=shared
This is not a paid promotion, I’m just a huge fan of the film! 😁⚡️💕
Great interview with nostr:npub1hghnjjpnvkz8t6gkszuf37d7puwc2qtxc65rnklqsngzv6kkug9qhhfyz2 I have sent you an email with a question/request. I know someone who could be really influential on uk policy around energy and net zero. I have spoken to them about bitcoin but I need some good literature to help orange pill them. They are really smart and lovely but just in the dark.
Thank you. I have just replied. ⚡️
Absolutely. Bitcoin is inevitable. 🔥