Bitcoin 4 Precedence!

celebrating 100k, again...

Happy HODL DAY! I type d that tyitle twice because I knew it was wrong the first time. Still wrong. w/e. GF's out at a lesbian bar, BTC crashing WHY AM I HOLDING? I'LL TELL YOU WHY. It's because I'm a bad trader and I KNOW I'M A BAD TRADER. Yeah you good traders can spot the highs and the lows pit pat piffy wing wong wang just like that and make a millino bucks sure no problem bro. Likewise the weak hands are like OH NO IT'S GOING DOWN I'M GONNA SELL he he he and then they're like OH GOD MY ASSHOLE when the SMART traders who KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING buy back in but you know what? I'm not part of that group. When the traders buy back in I'm already part of the market capital so GUESS WHO YOU'RE CHEATING day traders NOT ME~! Those taunt threads saying "OHH YOU SHOULD HAVE SOLD" YEAH NO SHIT. NO SHIT I SHOULD HAVE SOLD. I SHOULD HAVE SOLD MOMENTS BEFORE EVERY SELL AND BOUGHT MOMENTS BEFORE EVERY BUY BUT YOU KNOW WHAT NOT EVERYBODY IS AS COOL AS YOU. You only sell in a bear market if you are a good day trader or an illusioned noob. The people inbetween hold. In a zero-sum game such as this, traders can only take your money if you sell. so i've had some whiskey actually on the bottle it's spelled whisky w/e sue me (but only if it's payable in BTC)

Good night my Bitcoin frens...

Good morning everyone 🌞🌄!

Here's the article in long form: British Broadcasting Corporation, commonly known as the BBC, is renowned globally as a public service broadcaster primarily funded through a mandatory television license fee. Its duty is to inform, educate, and entertain while maintaining high standards of accuracy and impartiality. However, recent events have raised concerns about the quality of its journalism and the accountability mechanisms in place to address errors and misinformation. One such case involves the article "Every Bitcoin payment 'uses a swimming pool of water,'" which shows some issues within the BBC's editorial process. The Article And Its Issues On November 27, 2023, BBC News published an article by technology reporter Chris Vallance, claiming that every bitcoin payment uses a significant amount of water. This headline is inaccurate. The original study cited by the article discusses water usage per transaction, not per payment. A bitcoin transaction and a payment are different, with a single transaction capable of containing thousands of payments - a crucial distinction. Failing to differentiate between these terms misleads readers and exaggerates bitcoin’s water consumption by a factor of approximately 1,000. Cambridge University refers to this as 'semantic ambiguity,' akin to promising payment in 'a million dollars' without clarifying that the currency is Zimbabwean dollars, not US dollars. De Vries' use of such ambiguity leads to a similarly misleading outcome. In a statement provided to Forbes, Alex Neumüller from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance clarified: "In my understanding, there are currently no reliable estimates of the direct water consumption by mining operations. When discussing water consumption, we are likely referring to the indirect consumption associated with power generation rather than the water consumption directly attributable to mining farm operations. It is also important to note the semantically subtle but technically significant difference between water withdrawal and consumption in once-through systems, which is a distinction people should be mindful of as well." Neumüller’s statement reinforces that the water usage reported in the BBC article likely refers to indirect water consumption associated with energy production rather than directly with bitcoin mining. Alex DeVries, the study’s author, told Forbes, “There is no such distinction in my work; my article only states “transactions,” but the BBC took this as “payments,” which is inaccurate." Editorial Oversight And Fact-Checking The BBC has an editorial process meant to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content. However, the bitcoin article's publication calls these processes' effectiveness into question. The BBC declined a Freedom of Information request for details on this article's editorial process and fact-checking, citing the FOI Act's exemption for journalism. As stated in the email correspondence from FOI enquiries at the BBC, the act reads: FOI Enquiries - Information Rights, BBC LegalFOI Enquiries - Information Rights, BBC Legal This refusal prevents public scrutiny and undermines trust in the BBC's editorial integrity. The lack of transparency is further worsened by the apparent failure to fact-check the primary source thoroughly. The study's author, Alex DeVries, is affiliated with the Dutch Central Bank, a potential conflict of interest not disclosed in the article. Upon inquiry, De Vries clarified, “The DNB is not and has never been involved in my research. The purpose of the DNB is the [sic] ensure compliance of financial institutions in the Netherlands (including crypto service providers) with financial regulations, which does not relate to my research either.” This affiliation is problematic due to bitcoin's ability to disintermediate and potentially render central banking obsolete. In 2018, Cambridge University debunked DeVries's methodology of measuring bitcoin resource consumption per transaction, using the same instrument as the basis for DeVries' commentary and the BBC article, as "not a meaningful metric". Sai and Vranken (2024) have also comprehensively debunked DeVries' methods. Cambridge University criticized this approach for not distinguishing between transactions and payments. It does not consider the layered structure of blockchain transactions, which can contain multiple payments within a single transaction, distorting the true resource consumption metrics. The BBC's Accountability Mechanisms The response to the FOI request highlights an issue: the BBC's exemption from disclosing information regarding journalism under the FOI Act. This exemption protects journalistic independence but creates a loophole where accountability is minimized. When inaccuracies occur, such as in the bitcoin article, there is no straightforward mechanism for the public to seek redress or ensure corrections are made. As the BBC's internal review process does not cover these requests, it forces individuals to appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office. In this case, this lengthy process ended with the ICO upholding the BBC's denial. The Need For Reform For the BBC to maintain its position as a trusted public service broadcaster, it must address these issues of transparency and accountability. First, it should establish clearer guidelines and more rigorous fact-checking processes, especially for complex subjects like bitcoin. Secondly, the BBC should consider revising its internal review procedures to allow for greater scrutiny and response to public complaints, even those falling under the journalism exemption. The BBC should enhance its transparency by disclosing potential conflicts of interest and ensuring that verifiable and credible sources support all claims made in its articles. BBC coverage of bitcoin since 2013, as per Bitcoin Perception, has been consistently negative. In fact, the situation has deteriorated, with only negative media coverage continuing, despite a growing number of peer-reviewed articles supporting bitcoin's positive environmental impacts. The BBC has characterized it as risky and dangerous, demonizing the best-performing asset of the last decade. This long-standing bias further demonstrates the need for the BBC to reevaluate its approach to covering emerging technologies and financial innovations like bitcoin. Ensuring Accountability And Accuracy This BBC article on bitcoin's water usage shows how poor coverage and lack of accountability can disseminate misinformation. This organisation owes it to the public to uphold the highest standards of journalism and ensure its processes are transparent and accountable. When there is accountability, it becomes easier to trust the information provided. Despite multiple attempts, no substantive responses were received. The BBC Press Office and Chris Vallance were contacted several times, with only one correspondent acknowledging receipt of emails, but no answers have been provided. After re-contacting the press office and relevant correspondents, instructions were provided for filing an editorial complaint. Though the process was initially said to take ten days, there were only delays, an apology, and a suggestion to contact Ofcom. Despite filing a complaint with Ofcom, two weeks have passed with no response. This sequence—from the FOI denial to the lack of action from both the BBC and Ofcom—has spanned nearly 10 months, though pursuit of the matter was delayed at times due to other commitments. This is not an isolated incident; there has been little to no positive bitcoin coverage from the BBC despite it’s benefits in promoting financial freedom, innovation, and environmental solutions. The pieces that have been published are often provably wrong, spreading misinformation across other media outlets and ultimately harming consumers. BBC Coverage - Spread of misinformationBBC Coverage - Spread of misinformation The consistent dissemination of inaccurate information demonstrates the need for the BBC to reevaluate its approach to covering bitcoin and related technologies. If its bitcoin coverage reflects its fact-checking and bias, the organization is neither impartial nor adequately thorough in its verification processes. A retraction is still warranted. The BBC must address these issues to maintain credibility and public trust. Proper oversight and clarity are essential for a public service broadcaster. Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Susie Violet Ward Follow Susie Violet Ward is a financial analyst... Read More Editorial Standards Reprints & Permissions