> Instead, these pieces all rely on the implicit but unstated argument that Bitcoin has no fundamental utility. This unstated premise is intended to sneak entirely past readers’ critical defenses, as taken-for-granted as oxygen.

Bitcoin is great for money laundering, tax evasion, and market speculation, why does NYT ignore these social benefits?

Meanwhile, BTC is like money except less safe and even FTX only pretended to do basic safety like not keeping hot wallets. If the large companies can’t figure out security how can everyone else?

The tl;dr: is that David Z. Morris from CoinDesk, author of "Bitcoin is Magic" and owner of "Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana" calls the New York Times' article about Bitcoin's energy usage, carbon output and effects on the energy grid and price biased against Bitcoin, not because any of it is untrue, but because of how the article was framed and other industries also need electricity to function and therefore crypto miners are not worse than them.

Oh an “article” from the NY Times with a bias. The NYT is a bias factory. They simply cannot be taken seriously. Full stop.