According to a World Economic Forum (WEF) tweet, a “change in the way bitcoin is coded could almost eliminate its environmental impact.” That statement stems from a tweet the WEF published on April 26, with an accompanying video that claims “miners could stake their own bitcoins to verify transactions.”
WEF on Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work: A ‘Basic Change in Coding” Could Eliminate ‘Most of the Network’s Energy Demands’
In recent times, there have been a lot of arguments about the energy consumption used by cryptocurrency miners and how it impacts the global environment. In recent times, politicians and regulators have been targeting the mining industry. Additionally, the environmental global campaigning network Greenpeace, with the help of Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, started a campaign to get Bitcoin’s code changed so it will be friendlier to the environment. The web portal cleanupbitcoin.com states:
You’ve heard Bitcoin fuels the climate crisis, but did you know a software code change could clean it up.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has shown it agrees with the Greenpeace campaign “Change the Code, Not the Climate.” On April 26, the WEF tweeted about the possibility of Bitcoin changing to a proof-of-stake (PoS) network. The same WEF that has been promoting the ‘Great Reset’ agenda, shared an accompanying video clip that claims “miners could stake their own bitcoins to verify transactions.”
A simple “basic change in coding” could eliminate “most of the network’s energy demands at a stroke,” the video says. WEF’s video mentions the Greenpeace-led ‘Change the Code’ effort and the campaigners who believe the controversial idea is possible.
The WEF video and blog post got a lot of criticism from cryptocurrency supporters after it was published. A number of individuals said the Switzerland-based WEF’s talking points had faults in the assumptions underpinning the group’s entire theory.
“The authors of this are really confused about basic fundamentals,” the co-founder and CEO of Blockstream, Adam Back said replying to the WEF tweet. Responding to Back’s comments one individual stressed:
Adam, I don’t think they are confused. I think they know exactly what the f*** they are doing. It’s a calculated, well-orchestrated attack on bitcoin.
Back noted that either way the WEF’s arguments are “economically confused” and the statements “should be scientifically debunked for that reason.”
“They should be ashamed to say such nonsense so they at least can have a discussion while being coherent,” the Blockstream co-founder insisted. In addition to Back’s comments, Microstrategy’s CEO Michael Saylor had also responded to the WEF’s tweet and video about Bitcoin changing to PoS.
“If you remove the energy from anything useful you can almost eliminate its environmental impact,” Saylor said. “This is most common in fantasy novels and computer games. Real planes, trains, automobiles, homes, food, medicine, machines, and money all benefit from energy. So do real people.”
Plan B Says Misinformation on Bitcoin Is Consistent With the WEF Mission
The creator of the bitcoin stock-to-flow (S2F) price model, Plan B, also rubbed the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ agenda into the conversation. Plan B said: “At least this WEF attack… [or] misinformation on bitcoin is consistent with the WEF mission.”
Accompanying Plan B’s text was a photo of the controversial WEF tweet about the Great Reset which says: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. This is how our world could change by 2030.” However, the WEF tweet has been deleted by the owner of the Twitter account and only exists on archive.org’s Wayback Machine.
What do you think about the World Economic Forum’s latest tweet about changing Bitcoin’s codebase and miners staking bitcoins to verify transactions? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
Read disclaimer