This article is selectively quoting parts of a piece in The Economist [1] in a way that's incredibly misleading. It seems like the author is trying to spin the

This article is selectively quoting parts of a piece in The Economist [1] in a way that's incredibly misleading. It seems like the author is trying to spin the facts in a way that is not supported by the original source. The Economist talks about mining bitcoin in Venezuela being profitable due to government-subsidized electricity. > Venezuela is the cheapest place to mine bitcoin in the world. Miners are arbitraging, buying an underpriced commodity (electricity) and converting it to bitcoin for a profit. On the other hand, this article tries to claim that large numbers of Venezuelans are using Bitcoin as a currency, saying things like: > Eventually, the people of Venezuela landed on bitcoin, the only currency that is censorship-free and digital, which cannot be confiscated or restricted by the Venezuelan government. This claim is unsupported by the Economist article. It also conveniently omits the conclusion of the Economist article: > President Nicolás Maduro does not like bitcoin miners, and the government’s ownership of the electrical grid enables it to locate, and crack down on, those using the unusually high amounts of electricity that bitcoin mining requires. There are no laws regarding cryptocurrencies, so targets have been arrested on spurious charges such as energy theft. Mining equipment has been seized by officials, some of which was then used for their own gain. While bitcoin can protect from the tyranny of governments printing money, other kinds of tyranny remain unchecked. [1] https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/04/economist-explains-2 https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/04/e...