Ripple’s Not-So-Secret Anti-Bitcoin Campaign: A Comedy of Errors!

by

In a delightful twist of fate, Chris Larsen, the illustrious co-founder of Ripple, has taken it upon himself to clarify that his San Francisco-based blockchain enterprise did not, I repeat, did not fund the rather audacious “Change the Code” campaign. Oh, the audacity! 😏

As reported by U.Today (because where else would you get your blockchain gossip?), Larsen has teamed up with Greenpeace, that venerable environmental organization, to apply a bit of pressure on the Bitcoin community. Their aim? To persuade the Bitcoin aficionados to abandon the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithm. Because, you know, who needs energy efficiency when you can have a good old-fashioned debate? 🌍

In his latest missive, Larsen waxed lyrical about Bitcoin’s “remarkable” energy transition. Apparently, mining now predominantly relies on renewable sources—think hydropower, nuclear, and wind—according to a recent study from the University of Cambridge. Who knew that Bitcoin was so eco-friendly? 🌬️

And let’s not forget the flared gas! Yes, that precious resource, which would otherwise be wasted, is now being harnessed to power Bitcoin. Talk about turning lemons into lemonade! 🍋

However, the plot thickens! Ripple has recently found itself in hot water with Bitcoin proponents after donating the infamous “Satoshi Skull” statue to the world’s largest museum dedicated to the cryptocurrency. A generous gesture, or a cunning ploy? You decide! 🏛️

Some critics, with their memories sharper than a tack, have recalled the rather aggressive anti-Bitcoin ad campaign that was allegedly funded by our dear Larsen. Oh, the irony! 😅

Meanwhile, Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, has previously taken a swing at Bitcoin, criticizing its power consumption. He once described PoW mining as a “massive waste.” Quite the bold statement from a man in the blockchain business! ⚡

Moreover, it seems that the website urging Bitcoin to abandon proof-of-work is still up and running, despite Larsen’s insistence that no funding was involved. A classic case of “do as I say, not as I do,” wouldn’t you agree? 🤔

Read More

2025-05-28 22:26