Bitcoin proponents respond to New York Times’ BTC mining report

cointelegraph.com:

The New York Times’ latest report on Bitcoin (BTC) mining, titled “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin,” has irked many BTC proponents — some of whom took to Twitter to call out certain aspects of the report, including saying it was “cherry-picking” data.

The NYT article says Bitcoin mining has a “voracious” appetite and claims it uses as much energy as all residences in New York City.

In response, Daniel Batten — a Bitcoin environmental, social and governance (ESG) analyst — pointed toward what he said were two major instances of cherry-picking data alongside neglecting the increased use of renewable energy in the mining sector.

Batten said the NYT article drastically exaggerates the actual fossil fuel use of BTC miners, with emission levels overstated by an average of 81.7%. He added the report was “using overwhelmingly incomplete datasets to support a thesis.”

Batten also mentioned that there are 26 Bitcoin miners in the United States and Canada using 90% sustainable energy to fuel their mining activities, but the NYT article chose just two and focused on the sites least backed by renewable energy.

Troy Cross, another Bitcoin proponent, said the NYT article used “marginal emissions accounting” to prove its narrative, selectively applying it only for carbon emissions, not generation.

It's a shame, because I know months of work went into it, and the photography, layout, and graphics are superb as always.

Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Act Fund, noted that the NYT article made a mistake in its initial reporting, naming the incorrect town in which a BTC mining facility in Texas is based. The publication later corrected the error.

Wow. The NYT couldn’t even take the time to fact check the town that #Bitcoin