Greenpeace Is Right: Bitcoin Is A Waste Of Resources
Von Wong And The BTC System Of... "Existing Incentives"
What happens, when an artist creates a statue depicting pollution generated by Bitcoin-mining and instantly changes his mind about it?
The “Conscious Artist”
What we have here is an artist (Von Wong) who created a 10-foot hideous BTC sculpture made of trash to make a point that BTC is damaging the environment.
Even though this is too ugly to be considered art, and it was also sponsored by Green Peace (according to the artist), the artist still failed to defend his creation against an orchestrated attack he had to expect from the Bitcoin maximalists.
“Was just an artist hired by a corrupt organization for a gig”.- @Level39
Artists don’t have second thoughts about their creations, and if they do, they present their concerns with more art. This artist, though, flip-flopped within just a few days making everyone doubtful of his true intentions.
Von Wong even accepted this disgraceful comment as valid criticism.
The Bitcoin guy claims that Green Peace is a corrupt organization, and Von Wong did not question his motives. He did not respond in a way to back his claim but completely reversed his opinion.
The person behind this Twitter account (@level39) is a contributor to Bitcoin Magazine, one of the most disturbing pro-BTC propaganda leaflets on the internet.
We already know which side is righteous and which is not just corrupt but rotten to the core.
Von Wong was hired to create this despicable monstrosity and collected a bounty from an organization that believed he could accomplish a decent job.
Von Wong is now “convinced” by BTC maximalists that Bitcoin is not wasting energy, but presents a solution instead.
A solution to what, though?
Here is where the deception begins, and the artist, unaware of the blatant inconsistencies of the BTC narrative, authorizes maximalists as a pressure group to debate his work.
We know well the ways those with overwhelming resources abuse their newfound powers.
Bitcoin derailed from the original intention and the whitepaper. Today it is the price everyone caters to but not utility.
However, Greenpeace bears responsibility for this fiasco, too. It failed to recognize the intentions of a self-proclaimed environmentalist artist, who in the end delivered a lousy job.
Peter McCormack, with his simplistic approach, summarizes the breathtaking inanity of maximalism:
Von Wong can include the BTC hashtag on his Twitter profile and might even become the latest addition to the pile of BTC speculators on social media.
Gigantic Energy Requirements To Feed Speculation
(Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index - link)
If BTC had scaled to become a global network of payments, it would have been a great alternative to the pollution generated by the banking industry.
But for several reasons, BTC failed.
The thought of global adoption was abandoned and dismissed by proponents and developers, pushing mindless price speculation instead.
Today Bitcoin-BTC exists to feed egotistic speculators and whales. All those that entered early in what seemed like a good idea but turned out rotten.
Watching Bitcoin’s social engineers aggressively protect BTC mining, creates another layer of skepticism against cryptocurrency for every rational person.
In a vicious circle, BTC mining intensifies as the price is rising. The halving reduces mining rewards. If demand remains stable, then the price rapidly increases creating a massive bubble.
Fans of Bitcoin (BTC) are supporting a pollutive industry with no benefit for mankind.
Industries can evolve without delegating part of the production cost to the environment.
The environment, the forests, the fauna, and our health don’t have to bear the cost of mindless resource exploitation.
Bitcoin presents a net negative since all that energy could be allocated in research or other useful fields.
In Conclusion
The intimidation techniques of keyboard warriors work only against corrupt and insecure individuals.
If you don’t respect yourself and don’t stand your ground against insanity, you won’t get any respect from anyone that matters.
You will get fools like McCormack telling you how good of an artist you are while assuming the opposite. Your arguments will mean nothing when you denounce your work, taking the side of the opposite camp when it is clear you haven’t realized what their ideology stands for.
Even with this piece which is difficult to accept as art, the artist should support it if he believed in himself or the message he wanted to convey.
Maybe interests were not that environmental after all.
I’m pro-ecology, pro-environmentalism and I support Green Peace and other independent groups working with ethos to protect the planet from corrupt corporations, dumb CEOs and paid puppets.
This is how Von Wong should have responded to intimidation instead of what we witnessed ( “working from within with the system of existing “incentives”).
Cover on Pixabay (background)
Images, logos, and material in this article are used for research, and educational purposes and fall under the guidelines of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. If you are, or represent, the copyright owner of images used in this article, and have an issue with the use of said material, please notify me.
Also Read:
Platforms:
● read.cash ● noise.cash ● noise.app ● Medium ● Medium ● Hive ● Steemit ●Vocal ● Minds ● Publish0x ● Twitter ● CashRain ● Me.dm
Don’t forget to Subscribe and Like if you enjoyed this article!
I wonder what "incentives" he was referring to... His work tells a lot of truth though. Too bad, the artist can not stand on that...