Yes, believable, from all the payment methods available, Greenpeace would choose the most fucking inefficient one, that wastes 700 kWh for a single transaction, that’s 100 households!
Good news, no one has fallen for it yet.
https://blockstream.info/address/17XuABv4AHLDjcaWzrRpURoBS7536krqDo
More likely every recipient gets their own address. An easy way to track who to send more of these mails to.
For a generic non personalized spam, IMHO it would be too expensive to generate and track millions of wallets. They could have placed a tracking pixel for much less (they didn’t, the email is just plain text)
If then it’s some targeted campaign, then yes, a dedicated BTC address makes sense as you said
That’s fucking hysterical.
The balls on that guy to try to float Bitcoin as good for the environment.
He’d be better off impersonating OPEC.
Sending my bank information with smoke signals from burning tires would be more eco…
Lol, 700kWh?
Crypto is very powerhungry, but it’s not even close to that much much
It’s a conservative estimate, it’s even higher than that
Crypto-biased source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/08/18/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-use/ (you would expect they downplay the number)
You can just take a calculator and do by yourself the math from publicly available stats https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/
In the past 24 hours a block contains in average only 3500 transactions. Then that block needs to be validated by many other nodes in following calculations.
This is why it’s the most inefficient payment method, very slow (only 3500 transactions in ten minutes instead of few seconds), expensive for the user (transfer fees are high) and power hungry
You have no idea what you’re talking about, or else you’re intentionally misleading people. Transferring Bitcoin in a single transaction takes nowhere near as much power as mining it. Yes, BTC is stupid and terrible for the environment, but you don’t need to lie about the stats.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/bitcoins-energy-usage-explained/
I mean by somewhat more up to date news it seems like he is correct. Bitcoin is wildly inefficient and basically non scaling.
He is wildly incorrect because he phrased it in an intentionally deceitful manner. It does not require 700 kilowatt hours of energy to transfer one Bitcoin one time. The verbiage quote “single transaction”, is the entire problem with OPs post.
I understand lightning network exists to somewhat reduce intermediate transactions. But the actual transaction to be written into the blockchain a lot of energy must be used to calculate the hash. Still difficult to follow you on how the number is wrong, mate.
please explain how to transfer bitcoin without mining a block, since the transactions are contained there.
You need to take the energy required to mine a block and validate it (a lot, could power a small town), then divide for the few transactions that could be included in just 1 mb.
They impose a size limit on the transactions that can be included, so even if tomorrow the transactions increase 10x, each block could contain the same limited number. Of course, if you only count the electricity used by your machine to send the transaction, it’s just a few milliwatts. The problem is all the garbage calculations that need to be done to actually validate it.
You’re arguing in bad faith and I’m not going to put up with your stupid straw man. Your statement was that it requires 700 kilowatt hours for a single transaction and that is blatantly false. You seem to ignore the obvious fact that Bitcoin can be transferred unlimited number of times and you do not have to re-mine the Bitcoin every single time you transfer it. As I said earlier, I already agree with you that Bitcoin sucks and you’re wasting your time arguing with me over semantics.
You should censor the scam bitcoin address when you screenshot things like this.
Why? So people won’t send something to an address known to be a scam?
Yes.
Not only can people be pretty dumb sometimes, once the screenshot is on the Internet, who knows where it might get reposted, potentially without context.
I dont know. I agree with your point, but I think there’s more benefits to keeping it intact. Maybe a middle ground is to mark up the photo with ‘SCAM’ ‘DO NOT USE’ etc, but leave the address intact. It’s a phishing scam, so the address is the only info anyone has to potentially track them down. Maybe the address was used somewhere else, and there it can be tied to a person. The top comment here is someone already creeping on the address, which confirms:
-
people do do this legwork in the crypto world, there’s probably exchange admins and the like punching the address into their own databases and just not informing us because they didn’t find anything.
-
Noone has been dumb enough to send to that address yet, even before it was getting called out as a scam
If it’s censored noone can do even a cursory glance into it
-
It honestly sounds more like someone convincing you that crypto is great than someone convincing you that Greenpeace is great.
I wonder what fraction of Bitcoin mining energy comes from renewable sources. I bet it’s teeny tiny.
A quick google search said it was 52.4%
That seems high, though I guess if they’re doing it in a state with high renewable energy, that’s what they’re using. It uses a crazy high amount of energy though.
What app is this? (sorry)
Looks like FairEmail
Honestly the kinds of people who support Greenpeace are the ones who are likely gullible.
You’re not wrong, greenpeace is oil funded and has always been employed to redirect environmentalism away from anything that actually hurts the oil industry.
Even more than that they seem to be more emotional than rational. They play on the doom and gloom heavily.
Its the same thing with politicians cutting down the rain forest to put up wind turbines
