Introduction
Bitcoin has been hailed by some enthusiasts as “not disposable” – a technology built to last indefinitely. This notion suggests Bitcoin’s decentralized network and immutable protocol give it a kind of permanence that most technologies or currencies lack. But can Bitcoin also claim to be “the most sustainable thing on the planet”? This report examines the facts behind these bold claims. We explore Bitcoin’s non-disposable nature, its technical and environmental sustainability, energy usage and carbon footprint, comparisons to traditional systems, and arguments on both sides of the sustainability debate. In the end, we present a balanced view on whether Bitcoin truly deserves such lofty praise.
Bitcoin’s “Non-Disposable” Nature: Decentralization and Permanence
Bitcoin’s design makes it extraordinarily resilient and permanent, underpinning the idea that it is “not disposable.” Key factors include:
- Decentralized Network: Bitcoin operates on thousands of independent nodes worldwide without a central server . No single authority can shut it down or control it, making it resistant to censorship and shutdown. As one observer noted, “They can’t shut down code that runs on devices that happen to connect to a network,” highlighting the resilience of Bitcoin’s decentralized protocol . Indeed, even government bans have failed to kill Bitcoin – for example, when China banned mining in 2021 and roughly 50% of the network went offline, Bitcoin “kept on ticking” as miners relocated rather than disappearing .
- Protocol Immutability: The blockchain ledger is append-only and practically immutable. Once transactions are confirmed and added to Bitcoin’s chain, they “become practically immutable”, meaning they cannot be altered or erased . This ensures a permanent, tamper-proof record of all Bitcoin transactions, reinforcing long-term confidence in the system.
- Network Effect and Longevity: Over 14 years of continuous operation, Bitcoin has never required a reset or bailout. Its growing user base and infrastructure support give it a self-reinforcing network effect . The more people and businesses rely on it, the more “unstoppable” it becomes . In practice, to truly “dispose” of Bitcoin, one would have to disable the internet or electricity on a global scale – a virtually unthinkable scenario. Analyses suggest that nothing short of a planet-wide power or internet outage could kill the network; even a power loss on half the planet would simply see Bitcoin surviving on the other half until systems recover . In short, Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture and game-theoretic design make it extraordinarily durable and persistent, lending credence to the claim that it is not a disposable or fleeting technology.
Technical and Environmental Sustainability of Bitcoin
Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint
Bitcoin famously expends a large amount of energy through its proof-of-work mining process. Understanding the scale of this consumption is crucial to assessing sustainability:
- Total Energy Use: The Bitcoin network’s annual electricity consumption is on the order of 100–140 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year, according to the latest data . A Cambridge University study in 2025 estimated about 138 TWh/year consumption, roughly 0.5% of global electricity use . For context, this is comparable to the yearly power usage of medium-sized countries (between the Netherlands at ~113 TWh and Poland at ~150 TWh) . It’s also about 19 times less than the electricity lost globally in transmission and distribution each year .
- Carbon Emissions: The carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining depends on the energy mix used by miners. With an estimated ~138 TWh consumption and a mix of fossil and non-fossil sources, the Bitcoin network’s global carbon emissions have been estimated at around 40 million metric tons of CO₂ per year . This is about 0.1% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, roughly comparable to the emissions of a small country (e.g. Nepal or the Central African Republic) . While significant, it’s far lower than sectors like global aviation or manufacturing. Notably, Cambridge researchers found Bitcoin’s total historical emissions from 2009–2022 were ~200 million tons CO₂, with the majority emitted in recent years as mining scaled up .
- Trends: Bitcoin’s energy use has generally grown over time as the network expanded, but there have been periods of improved efficiency. In 2022, for example, Bitcoin’s total power consumption and emissions actually declined by ~14% compared to 2021, due to a crypto market downturn that made mining less profitable . Lower profits forced miners to retire older, inefficient hardware and consolidate operations, temporarily reducing electricity usage . This illustrates how technological and economic factors can influence the environmental footprint year to year.
- Per-Transaction vs. System-Wide Metrics: Critics often point out that an average Bitcoin transaction carries an enormous energy cost (often cited in hundreds of kWh per transaction), especially compared to something like a credit card transaction. Proponents counter that Bitcoin functions more like a settlement network than a payments network – a single transaction can move millions of dollars and thousands of aggregated payments via second-layer networks. Thus, they argue the per-transaction energy metric is misleading, since most of Bitcoin’s energy secures the network as a whole rather than each individual payment . Still, it’s clear Bitcoin’s proof-of-work has a high absolute energy cost in exchange for its security and decentralization.
Renewable Energy Usage in Mining
A critical factor in Bitcoin’s sustainability is how that energy is produced. If much of it comes from renewable or low-carbon sources, the environmental impact is mitigated. Here’s what studies show about Bitcoin’s energy mix:
- Rapidly Changing Mix: Bitcoin’s energy mix has evolved significantly in the past few years due to geopolitical shifts. In 2021, China – which had a coal-heavy grid in some regions – banned Bitcoin mining, causing a major relocation of miners. In the immediate aftermath, some analyses found the share of renewables in Bitcoin’s power mix dropped (one study found it fell from ~42% renewable down to ~25% after the China exodus) , as miners moved to regions like Kazakhstan and parts of the U.S. that initially leaned on fossil fuels. However, more recent data shows a strong rebound in clean energy usage as mining has re-concentrated in places with greener grids and as new facilities deliberately seek cheap renewable power.
- Current Estimates (2023–2025): The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) released a comprehensive survey in 2025 showing that 52.4% of Bitcoin’s mining electricity comes from sustainable sources . This included about 42.6% from renewables (solar, wind, hydropower, etc.) and 9.8% from nuclear . This is a significant increase from an estimated 37.6% sustainable energy in 2022 . In other words, by 2025 roughly half of Bitcoin’s energy is zero-carbon. Notably, the same study found that coal’s share plunged to just 8.9% of Bitcoin’s energy (down from 36.6% in 2022), while less-carbon-intensive natural gas became the single largest energy source at 38.2% . This shift – from coal to a mix of gas and renewables – suggests a reduction in carbon intensity per kWh for Bitcoin mining. It aligns with industry claims that Bitcoin is increasingly powered by cleaner energy.
- Industry Self-Reporting: The Bitcoin Mining Council (an industry forum of mining companies) has consistently reported a high sustainable energy mix as well. In early 2022, the council stated that Bitcoin mining used about 58–59% renewable and clean energy, calling Bitcoin mining “one of the most sustainable industries globally” . However, this figure was based on voluntary self-reported data from about half the network and included nuclear in “sustainable.” Critics argue the council’s numbers may be overly optimistic. Indeed, Cambridge’s 2022 estimate was only ~37% sustainable , much lower than the industry’s ~59%. By 2025, the gap closed with Cambridge measured 52% sustainable – indicating real improvement and possibly some earlier underestimation – but still underscoring that some previous claims might have been inflated.
- Use of Stranded and Renewable Energy: A notable feature of Bitcoin mining is its mobility and hunger for the cheapest energy. This often leads miners to regions with excess or stranded renewable energy. Examples include hydroelectric-rich areas during rainy season, geothermal energy in regions like Iceland or El Salvador, wind and solar farms with surplus generation, etc. Because miners can operate anywhere, they can monetize energy that would otherwise be wasted (for instance, curtailed solar/wind power or flared natural gas). Cambridge researchers note “interesting concepts and developments” in the industry such as using flare gas that would otherwise be vented, and recovering waste heat from mining – innovations that position Bitcoin mining as a potential “catalyst for renewable infrastructure projects” if scaled . In practice, companies have sprung up to use flared methane gas from oil fields to power Bitcoin rigs on-site, which reduces methane emissions (a potent greenhouse gas) while generating Bitcoin . Other miners are co-locating with wind and solar farms, acting as flexible customers who buy power when excess is available and shut off when demand rises. All these trends contribute to a greener profile for Bitcoin mining over time.
Technological Upgrades and Efficiency
Another aspect of sustainability is how efficiently Bitcoin uses energy – i.e. the technology of mining and whether it’s improving:
- ASIC Efficiency Gains: Bitcoin mining hardware has dramatically advanced from 2009’s CPUs to today’s specialized ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) machines. This brought massive efficiency improvements – modern ASICs perform orders of magnitude more computations per watt than early machines . For example, between 2016 and 2022, flagship Bitcoin miners’ efficiency improved from ~0.1 Joules per gigahash to ~0.021 J/GH (as seen in devices like Bitmain’s Antminer S9 vs. S19 XP) – a 5× improvement in about six years . These gains mean more hashing power (security) for the same energy input. The Bitcoin Mining Council reported a 63% increase in mining efficiency in just one year (Q1 2021 to Q1 2022) thanks to new-generation equipment .
- Diminishing Returns: That said, hardware efficiency is now reaching the limits of silicon physics. Cambridge analysts note that since ~2020 the pace of improvement has slowed . Chip technology is nearing its practical limits (5 nanometer fabrication is state-of-the-art; smaller nodes yield only incremental gains) . As a result, current mining rigs remain useable longer instead of becoming obsolete every year. The average lifespan of ASIC miners has extended, potentially 3-5 years or more now . This could reduce electronic waste and the need to constantly manufacture new machines, a small plus for sustainability.
- Energy Flexibility and Grid Integration: On the electrical side, miners are increasingly acting as flexible energy consumers, which has sustainability implications. In places like Texas, large Bitcoin mining farms participate in grid demand response programs. They can rapidly curtail power usage during peak demand periods to help stabilize the grid and prevent blackouts . In exchange, miners may receive financial credits or cheaper power rates, effectively being rewarded for acting as “buffer” load. A recent study of Texas’s ERCOT grid suggested that Bitcoin miners’ flexibility averted the need for new fossil fuel power plants, potentially saving the grid and consumers billions by replacing inefficient gas “peaker” plants with responsive load management . Moreover, this flexibility makes it easier for grids to integrate renewable energy: when solar and wind produce excess power, miners soak it up; when production dips or other demand soars, miners can shut off in seconds. This symbiosis can help smooth out the intermittency of renewables . Proponents view this as a technological feature of Bitcoin mining that enhances sustainability of the broader energy system.
- Future Upgrades: At the protocol level, Bitcoin has not switched away from proof-of-work (unlike some other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum which moved to proof-of-stake to eliminate mining). There are currently no serious proposals to change Bitcoin’s core consensus mechanism – the community generally values proof-of-work as essential to Bitcoin’s security and decentralization. Instead, sustainability improvements are coming from off-chain and second-layer technologies (like the Lightning Network enabling many transactions without mining each one) and from better mining practices, rather than from altering Bitcoin’s fundamental design. Some environmental advocates have urged Bitcoin to consider a code change to reduce energy usage, but so far this remains a contentious outside proposal, not an internal roadmap.
Proponents’ Arguments: Bitcoin as a Highly Sustainable Innovation
Bitcoin’s defenders and enthusiasts often argue that Bitcoin is not only sustainable, but is actually a driver of sustainability in energy and finance. Here are the main points proponents make in favor of Bitcoin’s sustainability:
- Decentralized Durability: First, as discussed, Bitcoin is built to last. Advocates highlight that unlike products which become obsolete or companies that can fail, the Bitcoin network has no central point of failure and thus may outlive any single institution. In their view, Bitcoin’s permanence is a form of sustainability – a monetary system that you don’t “throw away” or replace every few decades. Its rules (like the 21 million supply cap) are fixed, and its ledger will persist for as long as there are computers running somewhere. This permanence is seen as a feature, ensuring that savings stored in Bitcoin remain for the long term without dilution or decay (hence the moniker “digital gold”).
- Growing Use of Clean Energy: Proponents point to data suggesting Bitcoin has one of the cleanest energy profiles of any major industry. With an estimated 50–60% of energy coming from renewable or sustainable sources , they argue Bitcoin is “greener” than many heavy industries like cement, steel, or even traditional finance. The trend is also upward – the sustainable energy mix grew by roughly 59% year-on-year according to industry surveys in 2022 . This rapid improvement, they say, makes Bitcoin mining the industry leader in sustainability among energy-intensive industries . In other words, Bitcoin is cleaning up faster than most sectors of the economy.
- Energy Efficiency and Innovation: Bitcoin’s need for cheap power incentivizes efficiency and novel solutions. Miners continually seek out lower-cost and lower-carbon energy because energy is their biggest cost. This has spurred investment in renewable projects and energy innovation. For example, miners in remote parts of Canada and Scandinavia revived stranded hydroelectric plants that were underutilized, channeling their excess output into mining. Other miners finance solar and wind farms by committing to buy the off-peak excess power. This dynamic is framed as Bitcoin acting as an “energy buyer of last resort”, improving the economics of renewable energy projects (they can sell every excess electron to mining) and thus encouraging more clean power development . Proponents often summarize this by saying Bitcoin turns wasted energy into value – whether that’s flare gas that would have been burned uselessly, or wind power at night that would have been curtailed . This ability to monetize waste and balance grids is seen as a net positive for the environment.
- Comparisons to Traditional Systems: Bitcoiners argue that relative to the systems it aims to replace or complement, it’s quite efficient. For instance, gold mining and traditional banking consume large amounts of energy and produce pollution, yet those footprints are seldom criticized. A 2021 analysis estimated that gold mining consumes ~265 TWh/year and emits 145 million tons CO₂ – far more than Bitcoin on both counts . The same analysis pegged the banking sector’s energy usage at ~700 TWh/year with ~400 Mt CO₂ emissions , when accounting for bank branches, data centers, ATMs, and the minting and printing of physical currency. By these comparisons, even at ~138 TWh, Bitcoin uses a fraction of the energy that global banking or gold production use. Proponents admit these are imperfect “apples-to-oranges” comparisons – after all, billions of people use banks daily, whereas Bitcoin, in its current scale, handles far fewer transactions. But the point they make is that securing and transacting value has always required energy; the question is how much value is delivered per unit of energy. They argue Bitcoin’s energy usage is justified by the unique benefits it provides (a fully decentralized, global, inflation-resistant financial system). In their eyes, Bitcoin is “sustainable” in the sense that its energy cost is worth the societal benefit – especially if that energy increasingly comes from green sources.
- Grid Stability and Environmental Co-Benefits: As noted, miners can help stabilize electric grids and make greater renewable adoption possible. Texas is a poster child, where Bitcoin miners have acted as a virtual power plant, quickly powering down to support the grid at critical times. A report by the Digital Assets Research Institute suggested this prevented the buildout of new fossil fuel plants and saved Texas an estimated $18 billion in grid costs by replacing peaker plants with flexible load . Additionally, using flared natural gas for mining turns what would be methane emissions into less harmful CO₂ – some mining operations claim to be carbon-negative by destroying methane through generators. Proponents highlight these kinds of positive externalities: Bitcoin mining can reduce net emissions in certain contexts and make energy systems more robust.
- No “Disposable” Hardware Mindset: Unlike many consumer tech products that are used for a short time and tossed aside, Bitcoin’s core protocol is very conservative and avoids frequent changes. Miners invest in equipment that they aim to run for many years, and there’s a growing second-hand market to reuse older mining rigs. This stands in contrast to, say, millions of smartphones disposed of annually. While mining does produce e-waste (old chips and machines), proponents argue that extending hardware life and repurposing machines for lower-tier mining (or altcoin mining) helps mitigate this. Moreover, because Bitcoin’s value is expected to persist or grow over decades, the infrastructure built for it is seen as long-term capital stock, not throw-away consumer goods.
In sum, Bitcoin’s champions see it as highly sustainable in the long run – a system that is technically here to stay, and one that is rapidly aligning itself with renewable energy and innovative solutions to minimize its environmental impact.
Critiques and Counterarguments from Environmental Experts
On the other side of the debate, many environmental researchers and climate advocates strongly dispute the notion that Bitcoin is sustainable. Key criticisms include:
- High Absolute Energy Consumption: Detractors emphasize that Bitcoin’s energy usage is enormous by any measure for a digital system. They note that at ~0.5% of world electricity, Bitcoin mining alone uses more power than some entire countries with millions of people . They question the necessity of this consumption, given that Bitcoin processes far fewer transactions than, for example, the global banking system or Visa network. From this perspective, Bitcoin appears inefficient – expending the electricity of a country to support what is still a niche payment and investment system. Some critics label this energy use wasteful, arguing the same electricity could be put to better use powering homes, factories, or electric vehicles rather than solving cryptographic puzzles.
- Carbon Emissions and Climate Impact: With tens of millions of tons of CO₂ emissions per year, Bitcoin has a non-trivial carbon footprint. Climate experts point out that these emissions contribute to global warming at a time when we urgently need to reduce carbon output. A study from the University of New Mexico went further, doing an economic damage analysis: it found that from 2016–2021, each $1 of Bitcoin value created was associated with $0.35 in global climate damages on average . In 2020, during certain periods, the climate damage actually exceeded the value of the bitcoin produced (a **>100% damage-to-value ratio on some days) . The researchers likened Bitcoin’s environmental harm to that of highly carbon-intensive products like beef and crude oil, far worse (in proportion to market value) than gold mining . From this vantage, Bitcoin’s climate impact is unacceptably high. Critics also worry that as Bitcoin’s price and usage grow, its energy use — and thus emissions — could rise further, potentially undermining climate goals if not addressed.
- Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Despite gains in renewables, a large portion of Bitcoin mining is still powered by fossil fuels, especially natural gas and coal. The 2025 Cambridge data shows about 47.6% of Bitcoin’s energy comes from fossil sources (38.2% gas, 8.9% coal) . Coal, while reduced, is still nearly 9% – and even that amount of coal use for a single digital network is substantial in absolute terms. Skeptics argue that industry self-reports of 60% renewables are not fully credible and that in reality, a big chunk of mining happens in regions with cheap coal or gas (for example, coal-heavy grids in Kazakhstan, or gas-dominated grids in Texas). There is evidence that when China banned mining, some miners relocated to places with dirtier energy, causing a short-term increase in coal-based mining . Environmental groups like Greenpeace have campaigned that Bitcoin’s dependence on fossil fuels is inherent to proof-of-work and have even launched “Change the Code, Not the Climate” campaigns urging Bitcoin to switch to an energy-light consensus method (a proposal so far rejected by Bitcoin advocates).
- Opportunity Cost of Energy: Another argument is that even when Bitcoin uses renewable energy, this isn’t automatically a win for the planet. Opportunity cost matters: every megawatt going into Bitcoin is a megawatt not helping displace fossil fuel use elsewhere. For instance, if a hydropower facility or solar farm uses excess energy to mine Bitcoin, that’s energy which could have been stored or transmitted to replace a coal plant’s output. Some experts worry that Bitcoin miners outbid other users for renewable energy, potentially driving up prices or causing clean energy to be diverted from general use to private gain. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists noted that while miners can consume surplus green energy, this may reduce the incentive to build grid enhancements like transmission lines or storage that would more holistically integrate renewables for public benefit. In their words, Bitcoin mining provides a “temporary economic use for surplus renewable energy, but reduces the incentives to invest in grid infrastructure” needed for a true clean energy transition . In short, using renewables for Bitcoin is better than using coal, but from a climate perspective it’s even better if that renewable electricity replaces a fossil fuel plant rather than mines digital coins.
- Electronic Waste (E-Waste): Sustainability isn’t only about energy. Bitcoin mining hardware has a short lifespan – cutting-edge ASIC miners can become uncompetitive in a few years and end up as scrap. A study in 2021 estimated Bitcoin mining produces over 30,000 tons of electronic waste annually, due to rapid equipment turnover. Each Bitcoin transaction was associated with 272 grams of e-waste on average (comparable to throwing away an iPhone per transaction) in that analysis. Environmental advocates highlight that mining rigs are highly specialized and cannot be repurposed easily, often ending up in landfills . The chips and components contain toxic materials, and improper disposal can leach hazardous substances into soil and water. Thus, they argue, Bitcoin’s hardware cycle is far from sustainable. (Proponents counter that e-waste estimates have been exaggerated and that hardware life is lengthening with new generations of miners, but the e-waste issue remains a point of concern.)
- Local Environmental and Social Impacts: Bitcoin mines are essentially data centers, and when they set up in a community they can have local impacts. Reports from various U.S. towns hosting mining operations describe noise pollution (the constant loud hum of cooling fans and mining rigs), as well as high water usage for cooling in some cases, and potential air pollution if generators are used . For example, some mining sites revived defunct coal or gas power plants to secure dedicated power, sparking backlash from locals for increased air emissions. Environmental groups like Earthjustice have argued that crypto miners “revitalize dying fossil fuel plants” and receive preferential energy deals or subsidies that are not in the public interest . These factors lead critics to contend that Bitcoin mining can burden communities with noise, pollution, and higher energy prices while the benefits (bitcoin rewards) accrue to private companies.
- Alternate Solutions Exist: Finally, many experts note that Bitcoin is an outlier among cryptocurrencies in terms of energy use. Networks like Ethereum have shown it’s possible to secure a blockchain with 99.9% less energy by using proof-of-stake algorithms . From their perspective, Bitcoin’s continued commitment to proof-of-work is a choice, not a necessity – and it’s a choice that comes with heavy environmental costs. If digital money and blockchain technology are the future, critics would prefer they evolve in a way that doesn’t involve burning huge quantities of electricity. They often argue that whatever social benefit Bitcoin provides could likely be achieved with far less energy-intensive methods. Bitcoin proponents, of course, dispute this, claiming proof-of-work’s energy use is what gives Bitcoin its unique security and trustworthiness. Nonetheless, this remains a sharp dividing line in the sustainability debate.
In summary, environmental critics assert that calling Bitcoin “the most sustainable thing on the planet” is untenable. They see Bitcoin as having a significant environmental footprint that is at best improving modestly and at worst growing and causing substantial climate and ecological harm. From this angle, Bitcoin is far from sustainable – at least until it either cleans up its energy source dramatically or changes its core technology.
Conclusion: Can Bitcoin Be Called “The Most Sustainable Thing on the Planet”?
Bitcoin occupies a unique place in the sustainability discussion. On one hand, it is a technology with unprecedented resilience and longevity – a truly decentralized network that, once launched, has proven effectively impossible to kill or dispose of. In that sense, Bitcoin is “sustainable” in the literal meaning that it can sustain its existence over time without centralized upkeep. It’s non-disposable by design, promising a permanent ledger and monetary system that could theoretically serve generations for centuries to come. This durability is a remarkable achievement in technology.
On the other hand, environmental sustainability usually refers to operating in a way that can be maintained without depleting resources or harming the planet. Here the verdict is mixed. Bitcoin has made real strides in greening its operations – today over half of its mining power is from sustainable sources , and innovations are underway to use waste energy and assist grid stability. Compared to a few years ago, Bitcoin’s carbon footprint per hash has improved as coal use plummeted and efficiency rose. Some enthusiasts arguably go too far in painting Bitcoin as an environmental solution; the reality is more nuanced.
Bitcoin still consumes a large amount of energy, and while much of that is renewable, a substantial portion is not. It emits on the order of 40 Mt CO₂ annually , contributes to electronic waste, and in certain instances has relied on aging fossil infrastructure. These are real challenges if Bitcoin is to coexist with global climate goals. Calling it “the most sustainable thing on the planet” is an exaggeration – there are clearly other technologies (like wind turbines or public transit systems) that have far more direct sustainability benefits. Even within cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is the most power-hungry due to its proof-of-work mining.
A more balanced view is that Bitcoin can be sustainable in specific contexts and is trending in a more sustainable direction, but it also has significant environmental externalities that need to be managed. Its sustainability largely depends on continued progress toward cleaner energy, better mining practices, and perhaps creative policy (for example, incentivizing mining only with renewables or utilizing stranded energy). The label “most sustainable on the planet” doesn’t accurately describe Bitcoin today – it faces too many valid criticisms regarding energy intensity. However, Bitcoin is sustainable in the sense of endurance, and it has the potential to integrate into a sustainable future if its energy sources become predominantly renewable and if society deems the benefits worth the costs.
In conclusion, Bitcoin is not a throwaway invention – it’s an innovation built to last, with a robust architecture that ensures it isn’t going anywhere. It has some very sustainability-friendly attributes (decentralization, transparency, ability to use wasted energy) and some sustainability challenges (high energy demand, carbon emissions, e-waste). Whether it will one day be hailed as a model of sustainability will depend on how the electricity that powers Bitcoin is generated and how the narrative evolves. As of now, describing Bitcoin as “the most sustainable thing on the planet” is more hype than fact. But Bitcoin is certainly unique: it’s technically sustainable in its persistence, and it is pushing parts of the energy industry toward innovation. Perhaps the greatest takeaway is that Bitcoin’s sustainability is not a fixed trait – it’s a moving target, improving with human ingenuity and effort.
“Bitcoin isn’t just surviving – it’s thriving. An unstoppable network, increasingly powered by green energy, Bitcoin is turning criticism into innovation and showing the world how resilience and sustainability can go hand in hand.”
