Internal documents by the European Union have revealed the agenda against bitcoin. Internal meeting notes documented EU officials suggesting to protect altcoins like Ethereum which can be centrally controlled and forced to change their protocol.
If Ethereum is able to shift, we could legitimately request the same from BTC. We need to “protect” other crypto coins that are sustainable. Don’t see need to “protect” the bitcoin community.virtual meeting between Swedish and EU officials in November 2021
The above statement came from an unknown participant in a meeting between Swedish and EU “officials”. We are not allowed to know who said it—that info was redacted before being released to the public with a Freedom Of Information Request by Netzpolitik.org.
This is about a group of politicians and unelected “leaders” discussing how to reduce bitcoin’s growing influence in the world. According to Netzpolitik, during the meeting someone asks whether the EU shouldn’t generally ban the trading of cryptocurrencies that, like Bitcoin, use the proof-of-work method. The answer was redacted which should be cause for alarm. The lack of transparency is against democratic standards as withdrawal of information is congruent with misinformation.
Voices calling out conspiracy and corruption inside the EU will find more and more support by those who lost their trust in the institutions due to lack of transparency.
Further in the released documents the participants discuss their general reasons for banning bitcoin—energy consumption and… oh, that’s it! That’s all they have. So let’s have a look at the claims.
Nobody has been telling us how terrible the banking industry is, using more electricity than the entire country of Germany, have they? Perspective and objective measure is what helps us seeing properly.
They claim that bitcoin uses “enormous amounts of energy” without any standard to make a comparison against. How much energy does the legacy banking system use? Without knowing that, the word “enormous” is meaningless. Comparisons to countries, as in “as much energy consumption as the entire country of Finland” (0.07% of the world population) are likewise without meaning.
The numbers by Galaxy Digital say banking systems consume 263.72 TWh/yr of power while gold mining uses 240.61 TWh/yr. The Bitcoin network uses 113.89 TWh/yr of electricity. Should the world go without freezers, ovens, smartphones because a small group of bureaucrats believes the enormous amount of electricity is not justified?
We’re Wasting Mining Capacity, Not Energy.
What if I told you that everyone who uses electricity for heating or cooling is wasting huge bitcoin mining capacity every day. Many times more power than is used by the banks and bitcoin combined gets squandered away making heat while doing no work at all. Space heaters exist already. They will mine away happily, producing heat while also earning you money doing useful work at no extra cost.
The arguments being used to attack bitcoin hold no merit when examined even just a little. We’re choosing the currency that will be used to replace something fundamental to our civilization. Instead of wasting billions of dollars and real human lifes to back the US Dollar with military power money should be adopted freely without the use of violence. It should not be made purely on an ignorant and wrong appraisal of the facts. Our future depends on making the right choices.
If the contents of the released documents are an accurate reflection of the EU’s current position, then we are about to be steered away from bitcoin and towards etherium. What are the real differences between them? We’ve already established that the given reason to change is bunk, so what’s going on?
Etherium With PoS Is Not Real Blockchain.
To get a better understanding of what the new fork of Etherium is about, you should read Donald McIntyre’s article about it on Etherplan. Briefly, a proof of stake coin is simply less secure in almost every way. Proof of work was designed for a very good reason: to bring objective proof into an otherwise inherently subjective system that was open to abuse by individuals. As McIntyre says,
I think the correct name of proof of stake systems is “proof of stake distributed ledgers” as they are not systems that expend large amounts of energy to build and secure blocks of data. In fact, the reason they create batches of transaction data and link them as if they were “blockchains” is just an appeal to authority by mimicking real blockchain design, but that serves no purpose in increasing or decreasing objectivity, thus security, in the distributed ledgers.
Government—the people with the most to lose when we take back control of our currency—wants to steer us towards an inferior system. Why would we expect anything else from them? The real question is why is anyone listening to them?