high-stakes orange-pilling nudge, should i do it?
122 sats \ 4 comments \ @jasonofbitcoin 18 Aug 2023 bitcoin
I'm considering sending a carefully worded nudge to a (very) popular social media figure and science communicator, urging them to review the latest published research on Bitcoin doing carbon mitigation (methane) and funding renewable energy production (including OTEC).
This person has on the order of ten million followers across multiple platforms. When I search for them plus "bitcoin", the only thing I see is one interview from 2021 and one tweet from 2022. They were dismissive toward "crypto", concerned about the carbon footprint, and referred to "crypto bros" and compared them to being part of a cult.
BUT, this person is generally very thoughtful and is capable of artfully presenting nuance to the public.
Is it worth the risk of them using their platform to openly denounce Bitcoin, reinforcing the "Change the Code" narrative, for the possibility of them learning the truth about carbon mitigation and then using their platform to openly convey the subtleties around Bitcoin mining and how it could actually help us achieve climate goals while propelling us toward a future of abundant, cheap, renewable energy?
Should I do it?
yes, do it.55.6%
no, don't do it.44.4%
9 votes \ poll ended
write
preview
related posts
200 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead 18 Aug 2023
Research papers are a dime-a-dozen. It takes a large body of accumulated research, and the application of carbon mitigation mining in praxis beyond pilots. Bitcoin is nowhere close to convincing the person in question. They'll still be complaining after they're using the bitcoin network but don't realize they are. Drop those orange pills in the waste basket.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jasonofbitcoin OP 20 Aug 2023
Thanks for your input, everyone. Even though the 9th vote broke the tie in favor of "YES", that's not a statistically significant number of votes... it's essentially a tie. So I'm going to hold off for now.
I also just watched a long-form interview in which this person displayed that (at least as of 2021) they didn't buy the fundamental value of having a currency with fixed supply. In fact, they actively decried it, stating that: "storing value is not a good thing." The interview also reinforced my general impression that they are, as some might put it, a "statist cuck".
My fear is that nudging them on this might backfire... I could see them perceiving this new wave of studies as legitimizing something that they see as an unmitigated evil, inspiring them to use their platform to attack us.
Not worth the risk right now, imo.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @newnym 18 Aug 2023
My two sats? I say don't do it.
This is going to sound radical and toxic, but to present bitcoin as Eco friendly only makes you bow to their crazy energy/environment narrative. If this science communicator believes in the carbon hysteria, then he isn't really that good of a scientist or a communicator.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 18 Aug 2023
How well do you know the person? Sometimes a public persona of being nuanced is not reflected in their private interactions. You might be disappointed in their response.
reply