The image is too good. Mind if i reuse (with attribution)?

Love it!🤣

That's part of the story (for large miners). AI datacenters are going to need Bitcoin mining... that's the untold story.

Bitcoin miners are like ants (hear me out!) Ants eat crumbs, ie: food that humans either can't use or don't want. Bitcoin mining works the same way. It uses surplus energy at times and places where no one else can use it: midday solar overflow, nighttime wind surplus, stranded gas in remote locations. It doesn't compete with electricity. It eats the crumbs that no one else could use. And in the process, it makes the whole grid more efficient and more resilient.

I finally relented and started using Claude 72 hours ago. Here's what's happened over the weekend as a direct result. First, it was another Bitcoiner's results that showed me the potential power of using it. His output quality and quantity had gone up and I asked him why. He showed me behind the scenes. That crossed me over the line. Within a few hours I could see what the fuss was about. I'm happy to open-source what I've been doing so far, in case its useful to others. I'm still in the experimental phase, so I'm not recommending others do this - just sharing. 1. Fed it my 4 books, 100+ articles, podcast transcripts, keynotes, and over 100 coaching videos I use with clients. Asked it to mine across 6 dimensions: stories, voice patterns, coaching frameworks, repurposing opportunities, "named concepts", and cross-world connections (to help me link between the Bitcoin, coaching, and breathworks worlds I move in). 2. Taught it to coach me using my own methodology. Then asked it to mirror back where I wasn't applying my own principles to myself. It came back with 10 areas. Not integrity gaps. Blind spots. I couldn't dismiss them because the mirror was built from my own words. 3. Changed the default from "helpful assistant" to "thinking partner who challenges me." The default setting for AI is reactive, diplomatic, task-focused. I said: optimise for growth, not comfort. It now initiates hard questions I haven't thought to ask. It's taken a lot of coaching, but we've got there now. 4. Built persistent memory across sessions. Session logs, a master context file, a parking lot for half-formed ideas. 5. Created a voice profile so it writes like me. It suggests content, I rewrite it then show it to Claude. Claude feeds back why it thinks I've made those changes and learns. I affirm and correct it's analysis. 6. Mapped vocabulary across my three worlds (breathwork&meditation, coaching, Bitcoin) so it bridges them when generating content. 7. Taught it meta-principles, for example, whenever I discover something for myself, it now knows my next thought is to ask "who in bitcoin can this help", or "how can this help my clients", or "how would this help someone in Kenya wanting to promote bitcoin as freedom money?" 8. Built a story bank with every retellable story from my career, tagged by principle and cross-application. 9. Set up an autonomous mining protocol (content mining, not bitcoin mining) so any new content I give it gets broken down and integrated without prompting. 10. Asked it to hold me accountable on areas where I've let slip in the past, which I care about 11. Real-time feedback on what's working 12. It showed me how much content I'd created and forgotten. I have a pattern of building things and moving on without leveraging them. It named this pattern and now catches it. Some people say AI makes you intellectually lazy. My experience has been the exact opposite. I have thought more deeply across more threads than I have in several years. The possible applications are so vast that my imagination is firing faster than I can keep track of new ideas, even with AI's help! The biggest surprise: the least interesting thing it does is save time. What I didn't expect was the "mirroring". As humans, our eyes face outwards. We don't see ourselves. AI mirrors you from inside your own material. It reads what you've said you believe, compares it to what you're doing, and shows you the gap. That's real coaching. And it's impossible to dodge because the mirror is built from your own words. It found 10 areas where I wasn't living my own principles, and reflected those back to me. It nailed every single one. I I wouldn't recommend everyone dive into and use it this way without caution. AI is a magnifying glass. Used well, it illuminates powerfully. Used poorly, it can burn. For example, after turning off the diplomacy filter it made some observations that labelled current disposition as "fixed state". A coach would never do that, because it sends a negative command to our Reticular Activation System. So Claude has the potential to be better than any human coach at accountability, mirroring, and gap-analysis. There are probably other things it can do better than me also and its exciting to explore. The areas humans will always have the edge is inspiring change, creating beliefs breakthroughs in a couple of sentences, empathy, situational awareness, contextual awareness, intuition, seeing how feedback is landing - where to push, when to wait for absorption, when to be more direct - when to praise, when to create constructive discomfort as a growth motivator, when to "shine the light on the behavior that it serves someone to exhibit more of". It takes experience to know which feedback to absorb and which to set aside, and having been a coach for 2 decades, I can see how to correct it. But for someone willing to do the work, it's the most powerful thinking partner I've encountered. 72 hours. I feel like I'm just getting started.

Haha. Yes ;-) Based on data inputs from Claude

Why does Bitcoin get more enduring criticism than other disruptive technologies such as the Internet? Simple: Bitcoin is not only a technology, it is an asset. There was no financial penalty for being late to the Internet. You just used clunkier, slower tech for longer. But if you're late to Bitcoin, you don't only have mild inconvenience you have to reconcile financial cost too. We saw the same pattern with investors who missed the tech boom and in particular early Amazon doubters The tweet below is a textbook real-time illustration of this at play, showing three psychological principles at play at once 1. Cognitive Dissonance 2. Sour Grapes Effect (a dissonance-reduction tactic) 3. Omission Regret 1. Cognitive Dissonance When two cognitions conflict such as “I am a smart” and “I passed on an opportunity that turned out to be enormously successful”, psychological discomfort arises. To reduce it, people don’t change their original decision or admit error. Instead, they seek/emphasize information that justifies the original choice. (Leon Festinger, 1957) 2. Sour grapes effect (Sjåstad et al, 2020) Principle: People disparage goals they failed to attain (“the grapes are sour anyway”) to eliminate the pain of missing out In this context: “I didn’t buy Bitcoin, therefore it must be worthless/wasteful/destined to fail 3. Omission Regret Regret from not acting (omission) is often felt more intensely than regret from a bad action. People cope by rewriting the narrative: the missed asset “was never that good.” (Ritov & Baron, 1995) Gizmodo’s “How Much Should I Regret Not Buying Bitcoin?” (2018) even frames it exactly this way for non-investors Keen's admission of the missed £10 BTC price is immediately followed by a list of long-standing objections that conveniently justify the non-decision. Bitcoiners will call it “saltiness,” but the underlying psychology at play is standard, peer-reviewed behavioral science. Keen may defend himself by trying to argue "the tech really is genuinely bad". But in stating that "Bitcoin uses a lot of energy per transaction" (a piece of misinformation that anyone who has spent 1 hour researching Bitcoin mining will know is untrue: Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions) he has lost the right to claim objectively that his criticisms come out of understanding. Rather, he has illustrated a huge asymmetry in that he has spent countless hours making videos against Bitcoin, but almost no time understanding the technology. In his tweet thread, you can also see a classic red-flag that rather than engage on an issue, he will level one (widely debunked) claim after another. Brandolini's law in action: it takes longer to debunk BS than to create it. However, these are human frailties that can be overcome with higher self-awareness and lower ego. If the need to "be right" is reduced, then a person can become intellectually curious and re-appraise an asset. Indeed the ability to change one's mind is a defining aspect of real intelligence. Michael Saylor illustrated the possibility of this path.

4 years ago today to the day, I wrote a tweet that changed everything for me. Greenpeace had just launched their "Change the Code". I'll be honest, I was furious. For a simple reason. I just happened to have been independently researching Bitcoin's environmental impact for 2 months, so I knew exactly where they were factually incorrect, and why. My first instinct was to fire back immediately. I had the data. I had the arguments. I was ready. Instead I sat down and breathed (I use a practice called SKY breathing). 20 minutes later I went back to the computer and wrote a very different response than the one I would have written in the heat of it. Calm. Precise. Led with evidence. Backed up by sources. Not dismissible as the maxi vitriol. This was to set the tone for all subsequent engagements. The anger had transmuted into passion. But it was counterbalanced by dispassion, and that made all the difference. I never expected a single retweet. Virtually none of my tweets over the last 5 years had gotten any! But that one tweet got over 600k views and changed everything for me. More importantly, it set the direction for 4 years of research that helped shift the entire narrative on Bitcoin and energy. I've thought about this a lot since. The data mattered. The timing mattered. But what mattered most was the 20 minutes I almost didn't take. It’s the response that flies through space carries the energy it was launched with. https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1509120833360662528

The school system programmes three specific behaviours (don't make mistakes, don't admit weakness, be self-reliant). Leaders have to actively undo that conditioning before any of their "just be open" messaging will land.

The ways we can use AI are limited only by our imagination .... And therein lies the problem

Yep. That's one of the 5 ways bitcoin mining lowers the cost of energy. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-bitcoin-mining-keeps-energy-prices-low-daniel-batten-kbvkc/

Like the environmental narrative on Bitcoin, the way VC tries to generate returns is back to front. ... which is probably why so much of the industry went for the easy gains of early exit liquidity through investing in ICOs rather than doing their job of raising real people bringing real commercially valuable ideas to the world. In every other high-stakes industry, elite performance is coached. But in Venture, it's largely ignored. We’re suffering from the same blindspot that cost Oracle the America’s Cup despite being the better-funded by some margin. 1. "Bikes on Boats." In 2017, Team NZ beat Oracle in the America’s Cup final 7:1 by overcoming a bias called "functional fixedness." For 90 years, sailors used their arms for power. Team NZ realized that was backward. Legs generate more power, freeing hands for precision. They put "bikes on boats" and won. In VC, we have the same blindspot. We say we "invest in people" but treat their performance as a fixed trait. It’s back to front. If we want to win on the global stage, we have to stop leaving founders to figure it out alone and start treating them like professional athletes. 2. The 60% Opportunity In any portfolio, up to 20% of companies will likely succeed no matter what, and ~20% will likely fail regardless. The real performance of a fund lives in that middle 60%. These are the companies that either fail or turn into "living dead" because of avoidable leadership friction. You can resurrect a lot of those companies through coaching. That’s the real unlock. 3. On Fiduciary Duty If you claim to invest in people but do nothing to optimize their potential, are you actually fulfilling your fiduciary duty? The burden of proof shouldn’t be on why we coach. It should be on why a VC firm would choose not to pull the single biggest lever they have to control their returns. 4. The All Blacks Standard Coaching isn’t mentoring. It isn't just telling people to do what you did. In sports, it takes a decade for a former elite player to re-emerge as an elite coach. It is a profession in its own right. If we aren't putting our coaches through a real interview process, the same way the All Blacks select a head coach, we aren't going to see transformational results. 5. Making it the Default Stop treating coaching as a "nice-to-have" or a remedy for struggling founders. Make it the default. We made coaching a requirement for investment years ago, and it’s the biggest performance multiplier we’ve found. You don’t wait for your team to start losing before you give them a coach. You coach them because they're the best, because their performance dictates our returns, and because it is commercially irresponsible for us to continue to ignore this truth. It’s time to stop putting the burden of proof on why we should coach, and start putting in on why we’re okay with leaving so much performance on the table.