Change the Code? PoW, GreenPeace Idiocy and Why 'Stuff' Matters

By BitcoinGordon | BitcoinGordon | 30 Mar 2022

While Gordon awaits new writing assignments (like, for money), he's gotta unload about  what's happening with the left's ESG assault on freedom.

Greenpeace and Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen join forces to spend millions virtue-signalling what could be the worst choice mankind could ever make. The stakes on Bitcoin vs. Crypto get higher every day we watch global tyranny grow as it has been. If you don't sense severity in the air, you may be wearing too many N95s. Seriously.

There are a few points I want to make, so that's what I'm going to do.

First: Bitcoin is Bitcoin. It is the right combination of several mathematical, and therefore economic principles that, if altered, are no longer Bitcoin. What they are lobbying for, is a fork. Anyone can do it. Many have already tried. The only reason Bitcoin is the target, is because it has continued in success in accomplishing what it is designed to do. Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah, it can't transact fast enough to be p2p e-cash blahblahblah. Cryptographically, blockchain-ically, safety, security, scarcity, network-wise... 13 years and it does what it does. That is the point.

Second: Ethereum is the primary example of the move to PoS. How's it going so far? Everything that Ethereum has 'accomplished' in changing consensus, running it's supply model, handling fees, has been an example of how changing the code to make it 'bEtTeR' looks. Other than the idea of coded money via smart contract, Ethereum has been an increasingly bureaucratic process in the making, the more they try to figure out how to make it pure.

Many will tell you, the difficulty and tie to physical hardware are intentional, and it makes perfect sense.

I will be very honest, the part of physical mining that DOES bother me, which is a genuine problem seeking a solution, is wasted used mining gear. An entire industry is just waiting, begging to be discovered, either in repair, recycle, repurpose, in re-design. Something, something, will rise as a solution. Regulation is not, is never, the answer. If you disagree, you're either government educated, too young to "get it", or a leftist at heart. Come at me- lol.

The point of "second" is that PoS is already being tested in pretty much every other model. Hacks, consensus buy-outs, still using energy but not measuring or tracking that use, changing the model over and over, gas fees, you name it, these are not friendly tweaks to perfect the design; these are signs that no one has actually discovered a better model. The only aspect I would challenge, is that fees can always be lowered, and sometimes utility, like L2, is worth small trades in security for lower fees, but there is absolutely no reason both cannot be solved. Just think about it, if something scales, it can be used more. If it can be used more by opening more channels, like on Lightning, then low fees can compete while lower energy goes into faster, more common transactions, and the main chain is utilized more for buying and HODLing or selling after a long hold. It all makes sense.

Third: The real underlying issue. If the IMF, World Bank, BiS, and traitors of freedom like Chris Larsen, want to determine what you can and cannot use electricity for, and you think that is okay because you believe Bitcoin is wasteful, you truly do not understand a single thing about how the world works, and it's time to wake up, little boy.

They wish to use 2-way smart meters to control when you can run a load of laundry, and when to activate turning off the hot water cycle. Think it's conspiracy theory? The feature is built into newer washing machines, and countries are now utilizing the feature to reduce water in a load and to reduce temperature, and to charge new fees on top of peak hours even where carbon tax is not enforced.

They wish to control the market cost on energy-related industries by causing electricity shortages. Enron did it. Governments do it too. The more corrupt the government, the more you find failing or lagging infrastructure, and it isn't by accident.

California has already banned powerful 'gaming' computers largely because they know they can be used for mining.

Energy is not finite, and largely it is untapped. The sun, photosynthesis, wind, water, fire, every element of God's earth creates power, converts energy, and is cyclical and plentiful. There is zero reason to turn to the banhammer over innovation. 

Fourth: the purpose behind this b.s. is never what it is claimed to be. Kind of the same point as the above, but truly this is a cat and mouse game of learning to interpret the purpose behind the mechanism of control an overgrown power believes it is allowed to overtake. People have come to believe that anyone labeled an expert is by trade, smarter or more qualified, which is extremely dangerous to humanity itself, not to be able to recognize corruption and lies for what they are.

If you don't like Bitcoin, do not use it! You may wish you did later down the line. Want to call me a maxi? Or, a toxic maxi? You may have missed the point over and over again. Recognizing the brilliance in what was created, does not automatically mean the denial of the existence of the rest of the market.

I love science. I love tech. I am an innovator myself. I have offered significant contributions to the music recording industry, in hardware and in software. Innovation is "where it's at". I am not anti-Ethereum, anti-Doge, anti-Hex, believe it or not. I have some legitimate issues with the path that many projects have chosen, and I think every industry should have its own pet rock and mascot, so everything has it's place and time. In fact, I see no harm in every person on earth owning at least 1 Doge coin- lol. Might be worth $2 some day.

Speaking of which, Fifth:

Why isn't anyone calling for changing the code on Doge, other than Elon, who never mentioned mining, but only fees?

You do get that you mine Doge, right?

The reason?

Going back to all numbered items prior: Bitcoin is a threat to the international mobster banker criminal enterprise that is the IMF and World Bank and pals. They do not want to lose the ability to call the shots, to create debt, to control populations, and to keep them poor. They know that independence requires something that does not have any human tie to corruption via consensus. It is the truth. It has nothing, literally nothing to do with waste of electricity.

Let's reflect on how powerful Elon is. He made the announcement that Tesla would take Bitcoin payments, and within a week flip-flopped due to ESG government pressure. That wasn't a ditzy moment of autism kicking in. He knew the energy that Bitcoin uses. He was forced to make a pledge. more than 50% renewable energy and he'd take Bitcoin payments again. They prove mining is already well over 50% renewables, not that it should be necessary, and it took less than a week to prove. But, it wasn't the point, was it?

They don't want you to have the option to find real, independent wealth.

The fight to change Bitcoin's code is the exact same fight to ban private wallet custody. It is the exact same fight to gather KYC in every single transaction no matter how small. It is the same fight to shift to a digitalID that will turn every single transaction on the planet into direct global governance surveillance and new markets for selling that data.

Bitcoin is designed to adjust to literally every condition on the planet that makes sense. Let's say, for instance, that the global governance gets so utterly corrupt that it does actually carelessly lead to a regulated intentional shortage of electricity, but there were still thousands of miners out there. You realize that the difficulty can continuously adjust down just as much as it can up. Under the most severe conditions, hundreds of miners around the world could be reduced to mining using less and less gpu. It isn't banned from the code, it's just that the difficulty always adjusts to the interest in finding the next block and mining it, and thus far interest has always increased. We lost nearly half the network in China in a single week, and 1 week later, the Bitcoin network adjusted difficulty slightly down. Several months later, the active network had grown even more, and difficulty was higher than it was with China. It does what the code is designed to do!

Letting math control mechanisms that remain fair no matter what feeble minded humans think should change, is the entire point to NOT being Keynesian. The globalist's thinking is what brings the belief that we should continuously pay more taxes, while they print money and get fat off of our hard labor. That, is what they want to do to the Bitcoin code.

Speaking of Elon again, you understand the resources it takes to run an electric car? If this were about energy, there would be no government incentives; there would be no government contracts. Electric does not solve gas, just like windmills don't solve the grid. Innovation, true innovation, is a resolution.

I'm defending Bitcoin, like every single one of you should be defending Bitcoin. If you aren't, then you are probably fool enough to put every dime you save into the next ape, thinking it is of true, rare value. You need to learn to think for yourself.

Hey, you know, Bitcoin could be a government psyop. Really, it could. Bitcoin could have been invented by Craig Wright. It's true. Bitcoin could use too much energy... gasp, it is true. I don't think these are the case. But, I know how to actually think my way through the abyss that each of these present. What I do see, is that the world is quickly sinking into debt, depression, supply crisis, war, and they say famine comes next. It is almost like it is their version of Bitcoin: the anti-Bitcoin. It is baked into their code- to steal, kill, destroy. Call it a ponzi, an energy waste, antiquated technology, but look at their actions. They say antiquated, while forcing surveillance through a banking system that has seen maybe 3 small upgrades since 1913. Be honest! Open your eyes!

I am very open to new ideas. Richard Heart wants to place his trust in the Ether network? Go for it! Wants to create the world's first crypto CD, go for it! I don't think he is a scammer, but he does present some faulty logic in his arguments, but there just hasn't been an opponent intelligent enough to point out his weaknesses. Trust me, Gordon has what it takes. Richard wants to fix gas fees and double people's coins with Pulsechain? Go for it! He puts his money where his mouth is, and whether it wins or fails 10 years from now, I respect that. But, he's wrong about Bitcoin. He knows he's wrong, but he's framing a position and he will stick to it, even if it is wrong.

My only real issues with other projects, is if people get taken, scammed, hacked etc., and if they draw from the true investment potential of the one, truly scarce cryptocurrency of value. Other than that, I am not against people finding interest in, or trying out new innovations. I have friends with interesting crypto projects. I have written for crypto projects. I've offered to help re-write white papers for projects. But, anyone who believes the sole purpose of Bitcoin was to open the door to blockchain technology, has lost their way and needs to revisit the perfect reasoning behind the all-important part of virtual currency; having one foot in the physical world.

So, here's the thing.

The answer to energy use, is innovation. It is no longer theoretical whether or not competition encourages finding cheap, creative, and environmentally friendly solutions.

Turning wasted flares into bitcoin mining rigs: win-win.

Turning wasted turbines running energy sources that are not being used at all into bitcoin mining rigs to turn a profit from otherwise complete loss of generated energy? win-win.

Incentives to invite industry and add local jobs? win-win.

I can go on, but anyone saying "banbanban" is on the wrong side of the argument.

I'd rather see positive thinkers working towards breakthrough solutions that improve the human race and our use of the planet's resources, than lying while chanting "ban".

"Change the code", is the wrong slogan all together, and I have to say, if I were in the Ripple camp, which I've remained very open-minded about bc I loath the SEC, I would surely take the loss and cash out at this point. I can't respect Larsen on any level, especially as someone in the actual crypto industry. Shame on him, lest he repent.

There is enough energy. Innovation will only unlock more. The number of people that are international bankers who also pretend to be environmentalists would astound you. The number of people who have actually come from oil companies, who simultaneously back environmental initiatives that have a back-door benefit, would astound you. IF, IFFF, this were about the environment, then you have to know, they know better than to think the batteries in electric cars were viable to replace gas. You'd have to know they were excited about the ways Bitcoin turns wasted energy into potential ways to bank local economies. You HAVE to think, if they truly cared about the things they argue against, that they would just once, just one single time, think in terms of pushing for innovation. Marxists do not like innovation. That's the simple truth. 

So, let's pan out even further.

Let's play the "what about" game. Some people ban this from the rules, but I think it is perfectly plausible. I've already played the "what about" for electric cars. What about the internet? It uses far too much electricity; more than any single innovation ever. What about iPhones? Can you imagine the environmental impact on the parts list? New one every year... no complaints.

What about the environmental impact for the international print media that they are spending millions of dollars on just for this one anti-Bitcoin campaign? The TREES the TREES! Where's the outcry?

What about the trillions of dollars that the left wastes on false initiatives? What about the permanent damage done by mining natural resources for batteries? What about the carbon footprint of shipping those resources? What about China's pollution? Why are they always given a pass by the UN with their war crimes, pollution, and intolerance for religious freedom and persecution of Christians, Muslims and minorities? 

Why is the left so eager to protect pedophilia? Should I take the gloves off? How far should one go to try to reel in logic to the illogical.

If UNICEF were about the cause, they would give more than 7% of donations to the cause. If UN initiatives were truly aimed to fight world hunger, the billions of dollars passing through their NGOs every year would have solved it decades ago. Same for clean water. Same for every single initiative that offers a front to lies.

Let's see this one for what it is. If you are believing that Bitcoin is antiquated; you haven't done your research. If you believe that electricity is a finite resource, you're believing junk science and need to start being a part of the solution: think of innovations to fix the problem!

That's the way we win.

We should have digital scarcity and a means to find independent financial wealth.

I am telling you, if they push hard enough and scare Bitcoin core developers to change the code, and they buy off enough powerhouse miners to shift to PoS, and I do believe they have the power to do so, first of all, a smaller Bitcoin will still remain and most purists will still see its scarcity model all the way through to the end, but for hypothetical reasons, lets just pretend they do change the code, it will no longer be a model of scarcity. All of the point of the past 13 years will be ruined, and I promise PROMISE you, not a single other crypto model will ever offer true reliable financial security ever again.

And on that note, Crypto Gordon Freeman, the free man, for now... out.




How do you rate this article?




Hi! I'm Gordon Freeman (I hear they made a likeness of me in some video game... totally unrelated... or...).


Welcome! This is my blog for all things crypto, from my day trading and tutorials to general crypto news.

Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.