39
Happy May 24th to the wonderful followers of my blog!
After a month of moronic Elonic colonoscopies, a Pope on a rope, and a week of China banhammerings, Bitcoin still appears to exist.
A month of deadly blows to the market, the volume is healthy, the entire network is still transacting, and crypto in social channels is full steam ahead. Don't know about you, but I'm seeing resilience. One thing I don't do, or plan to do well, is price prediction, but if I nail it accidentally in social because I got swept in to someone's tweet, I doubt I will be able to find my tweet where I guessed right. I care less about the immediate price than I do about the reasons it got there, and the corresponding value.
Time tends to be an unforgiving manipulator of perception. This is often a very good thing, and other times, for instance when analyzing markets, it's absolute rubbish as our frenz across the pond might say. It's hard to imagine that last December, $37K Bitcoin would have been a glorious shock and a raving about a near-doubling of Bitcoin's all time high. That was the very first time it surpassed previous ATH's and pushed from $19K up past $27K all month long. The first time we saw $37K was only 5 months ago. Let that sink in. Also, overlay these stats to your favorite top alt, because it may mostly be because of Bitcoin, but does not only relate to Bitcoin.
Time distorts reality.
So, either a truly flawed, careless public messaging approach or a brilliantly calculated series of market manipulations from Musk brought us to an inevitable debate over energy use and climate change. The calculated theory is supported by a one-sided media frenzy of re-inserting itself into the "Bitcoin uses more energy than a small country" debate on cue, as it did in 2018, followed by the Pope, or as one might more aptly pontificate, the anti-Jesus for this century. When the Pope feels the need to piggy back onto the comments of Dog-pumping Elon Musk, one needs to recognize it is being driven by the U.N. It isn't conspiracy when decades of published documents provide the data of the actual conspiracy. I don't have any problem accepting the fact that we impact our environment, and there is always a strong potential that market-place greed can, and does, affect the environment. I do, however, reject the premise that there is any government in the world doing anything close to worse damage to the environment than China, who can unleash viruses and paper waste from masks all in the same year, but the free world will act as if the environmental crisis is the decentralized money that can help those in need, instead worried about passing legislation that targets these same citizens as victims. It's utter insanity, unless you truly understand the Marxist playbook.
The fact that the CCP ends up in the background of every 'conspiracy theory' while using the energy, generating the pollution, generating the waste, and manipulating the market, while 179 other countries are forced into strict compromises on their energy use and coming water supplies and food justice (it's all coming full force... you read it here), means it is an organized effort.
So, why the concern over Bitcoin specifically as it pertains to energy use?
Bitcoin sets the standard for examples of how networks are used in this new PoW thing, and by new, I mean compared to 6000 years of known written history on how civilizations transact with one another. Eleven years is a drop in the bucket. Bitcoin is the top project representing remittance solutions for people in poor, unsafe social conditions. It saves them time, money, and network solutions carrying funds in and out of remittance are literally saving family budgets and returning travel safety to people in the poorest of populations. It is also happening while taking power away from those corrupt governments, meaning less sovereign currency is traveling through the hands of the masses, and that is a threat.
Even more than this, is the fact that ETF's are coming to more first world nations, and much like PayPal for 300 million Americans, Venmo, CashApp, Alibaba, perhaps eBay and Amazon next will be allowing for crypto payments, and U.S. banks will be hitching up customer crypto wallets to their bank accounts, it is said as soon as this year. All of the top financial advisor and investment bankers are beginning to offer exposure to Bitcoin and the other top 3 only for their wealthy clients and institutions.
There is a running theme that under the cover of worry over the environment and worry for the poor populations, value suppression is led by a global centralized governance. There is a reason that it took from the 60's to the mid-80's for the messaging, plotting and international law to prepare the foundation for the U.N.'s now 40 years charge against climate change, using their own man-made models and the messaging of social justice. I've noticed that the stronger the U.N. feels about a crisis, the longer that crisis is prolonged after more billions of dollars are devoted. It shouldn't come as a shock, then, that the leading summits of '85-'87, and the primary one of 1992 in Rio, was led, founded, and largely funded by the Rothschilds and a hand-picked leader from Canadian Petrol industry. So, the bankers and fuel companies wanted to force governments to pay them their fair share, taxing the wealthy from those said countries to funnel massive cash flow into global centralized banks, and everyone just picks up the message without considering the source? Seems like we're willing to do the same regarding a global virus outbreak with our benevolent world-leading doctor... Bill Gates. You might believe this makes it clear what side I fall on, but truly the least of these things I care about is the politics. I look square in the eyes what I see, and draw the least-resistant conclusions based on it. Most people, though, require a loyalty to political party to draw their own false-positives. How about this time, let's not do that thing.
All of this provides a very brief reason that I know the sudden knee-jerk concern about Bitcoin's energy use is a narrative that has literally nothing to do with Bitcoin's actual draw on resources. First, it will propel the government initiatives that give Elon's companies a free boost in efficient clean energy solutions, partly because the same documents promoting big cash inflows to global government-backing banks call for eliminating the privatized used of gas-based cars, moving local populations towards mass transit, walking, biking. These are just facts from their own documents. To allow Elon a market for Tesla, they have to funnel subsidized cash towards his company's green energy solutions. This is why China came in on the back-end of the argument to 'crack down' on mining. The message will change in the near future.
So, Michael Saylor, an actual Bitcoin-friendly capitalist, comes in to provide a "did I stutter" fact-fest on how well Bitcoin networks utilize efficient forms of energy, including renewables, minimal-impact electricity zones, incentives to use energy where it is being wasted, and the list goes on. The very programs that are designed to try to incentivize businesses to use up wasted energy allocations are the places providing the best opportunities for big outfit crypto mining. Guess what? Elon knows this, and so do the papers, and so should the Pope. They do not feed you facts. They feed you propaganda dressed in sub-par statistics.
So, while the impact of the internet was warned about in the same manner, ironically the same 3 years surrounding the Rio Earth Summit where I seem to be one of the only people with the audio recording of Rothschild spouting out how to funnel the world's wealth into his environmentally friendly banks, they were feeding articles to the press that the internet would devour the world's supply of energy and we were doomed. One has to ask themselves whether every fool who willingly subjected themselves to a one-sided argument over Bitcoin's rape of the free world's electricity did so while typing on their Mac or PC? Did they publish it using the internet? Did the social media channels push it on their social media platforms? So, who's using the energy? Are they writing from mostly metropolitan cities that utilize the highest centralized draws on man-made energy sources? Even worse, have these people been breathing and letting off gas all this time? GUILTY! Folks, it's laughable.
So, meanwhile Bitcoin is still here and many now know about it because of the atrocity of its corrupt mining satan worshippers- lol. And yet, there's still some clean water to drink and oxygen in the sky. Amazing!
Yes, I am willing to view the world in a balanced manner, where I believe in certain measures of conservation, keeping things clean, looking for future-minded efficiency in every corporate and tech sector. I don't like pollution or waste, and think we can do better at finding non-manipulated, un-propagandized means to make a better, cleaner world. I think that the less the central bankers and power-sucking governments are involved in doing so the better. The less manipulation, the better. Let incentives come from emerging industries, not dangling fruit paid by invisible forces. If the message is "central banks are evil" but you search for the founders paying for the message, and it happens to be central bankers, do some research to learn "WHY"!
Now, for a metaphor.
Worth the wait? We shall see! :-)
Several years ago, I came downstairs to heat up some coffee and heard an unusual sound. Oh dear, it was the sound of rushing water. Our waterline to the fridge broke and was gracing the floor and anything placed upon it with a generous sheet of water. Once killing the source and sweeping what we could out a pair of glass doors out the back deck, a few interactions with the insurance folks, we spent several days with an experimental process from the company the insurance folks hired to dry the floors. With airport-volume industrial fans a-blazin', days of drying, the end result was a dry surface and nothing resolved for the underlying damage to the floors. But, from then forward we really didn't care about the luxury of cool water and ice from the fridge.
Since then, I have two gatorade bottles that I use for my constant source of drinking water. I place one in the freezer with 1/3 water, to create ice while the other is in use. I have cold iced water all day long and don't really ever imagine feeling the need to hook a tiny water line to a fridge again.
Every day I am benefiting from a constant source of one small luxury I enjoy; a sensation that I've got cool iced water, refreshing, pleasant. My carry device is renewable even if it is plastic. I've been using these two bottles for a very, very, very long time. They're clean, they do what they do, they occupy the space that they use. There is a spot in the freezer where they trade the same shared space. They do not consume any measurable energy different from that which is already powering an energy-efficiency fridge to begin with. If I decided to ban drinking iced water from my household, I would use the exact same energy to keep my other food supplies frozen until in-use and a tiny fraction of that energy-converted supply would be wasted on an empty chunk of real estate the size of a gatorade bottle. The energy is still in use, and that empty slot is still inside the fridge's freezer.
Unless Michael Saylor lies and numerous sources who back-up the statements he has made are untrue, the entire global footprint of Bitcoin mining is something that government, local and state bargain over with mining operations, to bring a zero-carbon solution to inefficiencies in their energy production. There are turbine-water-driven energy plants that are unable to prevent the amount of brute force natural energy churning out of them, even though the energy needs of local populations cannot come close to using as much energy that is being generated. Bitcoin mining is thus incentivized at a mutually beneficial price to make it worth the price to mine, while making use of energy that was going to get wasted anyway. In other cases, conditions are either affordable enough, or the need for efficiencies are great enough that renewable energy sources are sought by the mining group themselves, and excess energy can actually be sold back to the source.
I am certain that absent from government manipulation and greedy power mongers of energy and petrol, the private sector can do a fantastic job of harnessing new, brilliant forms of energy, energy storage, and regenerative power supplies to both reduce the draw from mining and to make mining more efficient itself. But, at the moment, no one's lights are off because of Bitcoin. It is a farce, a fable, that somehow mining Bitcoin next to a turbine source that literally cannot help but over-provide constant energy, is somehow starving a child on the other side of the globe. If turbines are powered by a force of nature, water, it will keep churning as long as water and gravity both operate the same way.
What is impressive, is that if there are natural, or man-made crises to occur, limiting power use in certain regions, the network will adapt. It will find ways to continue mining and transacting the network in other locations. It is only going to be at the hands of intentional manipulation if real issues occur, unless we are talking about earth-altering science like solar flares and such. An EMP could cause massive harm to anything, everything on the planet, or focus on a specific area.
But, it is my assertion that everything most likely to threaten the efficiency-seeking nature of Bitcoin and its global network, is man-made. If there is a shortage in the highest quality mining equipment, it is going to be a CCP-invented scarcity, and it will only occur at the most crucial times for foreign entities to scale up operations. If there is a greater need for semiconductors, China will squeeze the source to limit supply and drive up prices to make it more and more difficult for everyone other than China to benefit. These kinds of intentional breeches of goodwill and international trade are the very reason that real, tangible decentralization are needed. We need to get smart about making our own technology and stop being so short in our vision of cheap human labor. I'd rather have more places compete to make computer parts, paying people well for their efforts, with smaller profit margins, than to suddenly lack the equipment necessary to future-proof Bitcoin's network. Does anyone think the world would be a better place by remaining subjected to the wills of the CCP?
My bottom line for this doo-dad is to encourage people to think in terms of innovation; real innovation, not government-scripted "there's a fire but we need enough money to take 30 years to rush to put it out" Marxist crap. Stop buying into all of this subsidized dishonesty. Think like innovators, and even more so, for all of us who likely are just going to find ourselves in a lively discussion about such topics, be passionate about having good points to make instead of reciting scripts forced in schools and institutions, again without ever questioning the source.
You and I may not be the ones to actually build a more efficient ASIC or more efficient power sources, but we can get in the conversation and shift people's thinking away from brainwashing and inch it towards actual solutions in the people's hands, and you can take THAT kinda innovation to the bank!
And on that note, an efficient and well hydrated crypto Gordon Freeman, for now... out.
