Daniel Batten's avatar
Daniel Batten
Dsbatten@nostrich.love
npub13lky...lpsy
Focusing 2026 on coaching Bitcoin builders and leaders newsletter: danielbatten.substack.com
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 9 months ago
This is one of my favorite podcasts I've been on. Yet very few people will see it. Why? 1. Because it is not from 'well known' podcasters, the Twitter algo will derate it 2. I don't only talk about Bitcoin, but spent the first 51mins talking about life before Bitcoin 3. A lot of it was about Bitcoin, but the audience of the podcast is non-Bitcoiners Yet these are the people we need to reach more. And, just because you like Bitcoin, doesn't mean that's the only swimlane you live in. Grateful that we have Nostr, which encourages the exploration of themes outside a narrow algorithmic swimlane.
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 10 months ago
Last year, Bitcoin miners flipped to being net accumulators of Bitcoin, 115 years ahead of schedule. This potentially breaks the assumptions of several Bitcoin price models
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 10 months ago
Last year, Bitcoin miners flipped to being net accumulators of Bitcoin, 115 years ahead of schedule. Many of our price models have now been broken Full interview:
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
Plenty of billionaires have become successful without meditating it’s true, but Dalio has done it with such a vibe of calmness, humility and intellectual incisiveness. image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
We are now 2 years in to Bhutan's Bitcoin Strategic Reserve experiment. That means we now hae some good data on how it has affected the economy. For context: Bhutan have formed a large Bitcoin Strategic Reserve by using their surplus renewable hydropower to mine Bitcoin. The IMF warned that nations embracing Bitcoin would destabilize their economy, be less effective at attracting foreign direct investment, and endanger their decarbonizing and environmental initiatives. What does the data say: 1. Bhutan's Bitcoin Strategic Reserve has directly addressed pressing fiscal needs. "In June 2023, Bhutan allocated $72 million from its holdings to finance a 50% salary increase for civil servants" 2. Bhutan was able to "use Bitcoin reserves to avert a crisis as foreign currency reserves dwindled to $689 million" 3. Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay in an interview said that bitcoin also "supports free healthcare and environmental projects" 4. Tobgay also said their Bitcoin reserves helped in "stabilizing [the nation’s] $3.5 billion economy" 5. Independent analysts have now said that "this model could attract foreign investment, particularly for nations with untapped renewable resources" Considering how the IMF analysis was not just wrong, but roughly 180° off target, it begs the question, was the IMF's predictions ever based on data? Or maybe they just possibly had another agenda in predicting the adverse impact of any nation embracing Bitcoin? image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
Last week I had the pleasure of meeting @preston. He not only knows how Bitcoin revolutionizes money, he gets how Bitcoin revolutionizes energy. So he asked questions I’ve never been asked, and as a result we got to explore the fascinating subject of how Bitcoin can uplevel the way civilization does energy. Here’s the time stamps if you want to skip to a part that interests you 01:35 - Bitcoin mining innovations including use of methane from landfills 02:11 - How Bitcoin mining is decentralizing and why it matters 2:39 - The role of mining pool distribution in securing the network 6:57 - How Bitcoin is disrupting the energy sector, like it is disrupting finance 19:55 - The intersection of AI and Bitcoin mining and what it means for the future 24:43 - Why the increasing energy demand of Bitcoin mining is positive 34:05 - The incredible future of Bitcoin mining heat reuse 49:05 - Types of power that will likely dominate Bitcoin mining in future
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
A few people have pointed out the latest bitcoin mining article from CNN. I have seen it. Reposting my rebuttal here Open letter to Elizabeth McBride at @CNN regarding today's article on Bitcoin Mining https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/03/climate/crypto-mining-renewables-electricity-shortage/index.html The piece you wrote on Bitcoin Mining this morning perpetuates some unbalanced, and in some cases outright false, claims. Further, the article makes a series of claims and inferences that are not supported by the scientific consensus (14 of the last 16 articles on Bitcoin and energy show strong environmental benefits, none of which you acknowledge). Instead you engage in what can at best be described as “selective reporting”, including. 1. Reported on how Bitcoin mining was used in a rogue way in Abkhazia, which allegedly caused grid destabilization, but didn't acknowledge that this is an anomaly, with Bitcoin mining having been embraced by both grid operators and in academic research as a critical tool for stabilizing the grid. For example, a whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to stabilize grids, and decarbonize grids. Lai et al states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445 Ibañez et al concludes “PoW mining emerges as an alternative that can provide additional income and ancillary services (auxiliary services designed to provide stability to the energy grid)” https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35 Menati et al found that “the flexibility of cryptocurrency mining loads plays a pivotal role in the reliability of electricity systems and the stability of electricity markets” and “cryptocurrency mining …is shown not to be detrimental to power grid reliability even with significant amounts at certain locations.” https://https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X Why did you include none of this body of evidence in your article? Was it because you were unaware of it - or simply because it didn't support the story you wished to advance? 2. Advanced the (previously debunked) implication that Bitcoin mining takes renewable energy away from other operators. It doesn't. Bitcoin mining because of its economic incentives to use cheap power is, as former ERCOT Grid operator Brad Jones attested, a “non-rival energy user”. In other words, it “powers down when the price of power becomes too expensive; the very time other people want/need that power. In fact, the opposite is true with many cases arising of people who have access to renewable energy who otherwise would not have as a direct result of Bitcoin mining. For example, Gridless in Africa has delivered renewable energy to four villages, while on a much bigger scale in Ethiopia, Bitcoin mining is helping accelerate the building of transmission lines to deliver renewable energy to people. Again, why did you include none of this context? 3. Strong Evidence of Non-investigative reporting While you interviewed the CEO of MARA, you'd clearly already formed the basis of the piece you wanted to write before you contacted him, using the interview merely as a source of rebuttal from known Bitcoin antagonist Mandy deRoche. Mandy is neither a Bitcoin mining expert, nor an energy expert. She is a paid Earthjustice anti-Bitcoin campaigner. 4. Cherry picking data While Russia does indeed have mainly fossil fuels, your article makes no mention of the fact that Bitcoin is now powered 52.6% by sustainable energy sources (Bloomberg Intelligence, 2023). 5. Error by omission You excluded a large body of research showing that far from "taking renewable energy away" from people, Bitcoin plays an important role in accelerating the green energy transition, which makes more renewable energy available to more people. This finding is supported by numerous peer reviewed studies which found that Bitcoin mining enables halving of the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) accelerating the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2003) accelerating renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024) Incidentally, Bitcoin mining has also been shown to help reduce methane emissions (Sechrest et al, 2024) and obviate the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) In forming your perspective on Bitcoin mining, why did you ignore this body of facts, and instead rely on a single anti-Bitcoin lobbyist's opinion ? Is this not akin to ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change and writing an article based on the opinions of a single oil industry lobbyist? Summary Overall, its a bit of a throwback of an article, the likes of which we used to see more of in 2021-22 before most of the mainstream media became aware of the shift in the scientific consensus around Bitcoin mining and its (largely positive) enviromental impact. Indeed, even sustainability focused media including Anthropocene, Renewables Now and Renewable Energy Magazine now report 90% on the environmental benefits of Bitcoin mining. source: https://https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1874851606430110073 I would suggest you take time to research Bitcoin more thoroughly next time before you write about it, rather than relying on the opinions of paid lobbyists from Earthjustice. Perhaps then, this may result in a better-informed article, which your peers in the mainstream media are now consistently writing about Bitcoin mining. source: https://https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1867026305683951660 My perspective is one of a climatetech investor who saw over 200 different climatetech propositions, but saw in Bitcoin mining the ability to mitigate multiple environmental challenges at one time. This sort of non-evidence based, or selective-evidence based, reporting is counterproductive to the efforts of many environmental pragmatists who are working hard to accelerate the advancement of renewable energy using Bitcoin mining. If you wish to write a piece on Bitcoin mining that is supported by evidence, please reach out. There are plenty of experts who have studied the issue deeply who we can direct you to. Sincerely Daniel Batten Climatetech Investor
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
Was just on the podcast What Bitcoin Did Danny I talked just about * Why the scientific consensus is highlighting Bitcoin's environmental benefits * What the data is telling us this Bitcoin cycle will look like * What mining companies buying BTC means for price * Why GreenpeaceUSA had to stop their anti-Bitcoin campaign * The big remaining barrier to mainstream adoption * Inspiring innovations in Bitcoin mining Youtube: Apple Podcasts: Spotify:
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
The Bitcoin Adoption Forecast #28 is out. Check your emails and spam filters www.batcoinz.com/p/the-big-volatility-dip-part-2 image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 11 months ago
Who’d be interested in attending a Bitcoiners online group meditation session 8-8.30pm Friday (tomorrow)?
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 0 years ago
When wind farms do not do bitcoin mining with their surplus energy, they waste a lot of energy and money. Because of this, when the turbines reach end of life they do not get repowered. Because of this there, the asset is wasted and that power must start coming from thermal sources again.
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 0 years ago
And … another negative Bitcoin mining article rescinded! This one was from Environment California I pointed out the sources they used are discredited (with evidence) and that they omitted many known environmental benefits To their credit, they took the article down immediately For context: for the last two years, each morning I do a search on who's written a hitpiece criticizing Bitcoin's environmental track record. Depending on the article, I either write a rebuttal and post it on LinkedIn/ Twitter, or write directly to the author to see if they are open to learning, or both. Over the years, there have been some good successes. One journalist did a complete 180, and now is a co-writer of my newsletter. Others amended. Several have rescind. Most dug their heals in, but in almost all cases that was the last negative article on Bitcoin they ever wrote. Many of them got community noted, ratiod, one even deleted his profile from twitter. My intention was threefold 1. Educate and get a retraction and/or a followup piece citing the positive environmental benefits of bitcoin, where there was high openness 2. Educate with an amendment to the article where there was some openness 3. Where there was no openness to learning, make it very clear that writing nonsense about Bitcoin would be held to account, publicly, so that the author did not repeat the offence. The strategy seems to be working, because the volume of environmental FUD about bitcoin is decreasing and none of the journalists I rebutted over the last two years wrote another piece on bitcoin and energy after their original piece/series. Why do I do this? Well, when misinformation is spread about Bitcoin, it hurts the Bitcoin mining industry, it slows Bitcoin adoption, but it also stops innovation in the energy sector. It also perpetuates the unnecessary practice of wasting stranded energy, flaring gas, venting landfill emissions and using gas peaker plants rather than Bitcoin mining to stabilize grids. For Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining to reach its potential, there are huge mountains of misinformation that must be countered. If I can make some small contribution to that, it's time well spent. image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 0 years ago
BBC, one of the chief architects of propaganda against bitcoin, was getting USAID funding?! image
Daniel Batten's avatar
dsbatten 1 year ago
Re: home mining, has anyone come across a good solution for 1-3 KW of mining/heating? Setup is an oversized solar array, producing excess electricity (about $800 stored up) The local grid pays 0.18c per KWh and charges 0.24c).