That comment definitely deserves a zap. š
I absolutely loved penning my column, āMyTwo Sats,ā for CityAM. It was a dream come true to rant about the complexities of money, economics, and how bitcoin could fix it. It was aimed at Londonās city workersāfrom bankers to brokers.
I also had the privilege of collaborating with an incredibly talented (and anonymous) bitcoin artist who transformed my words into art.
This article explores the critical link between energy and moneyāa foundational aspect of any economy.
By reconnecting money to real-world assets like energy, bitcoin is proposing a theoretical fix and offering a practical pathway to sustainable, fair economic practices.
But I know you guys already get it; hopefully, a few more people in the City of London will catch on now too.
https://www.cityam.com/why-money-should-have-a-direct-and-transparent-link-to-energy/
I submitted a freedom of information request on 5 December 2023. After months of dead ends, the BBC finally referred me to Editorial Complaints on 25 June 2024. I reached out the next day, and was told it would take 10 working days. After following up last week, I was informed it could take an additional four weeks.
This is the article:
And this is how misinformation spreads.
I just want a retraction.
Just wanted to share an exciting update! For those who donāt know me, Iām the Co-founder, Director, and Head of Mining & Energy at Bitcoin Policy UK.
The UK is embarrassingly behind the curve when it comes to bitcoin adoption and mining. To help change that, weāve been quietly collecting S9s for a top-secret project.
Weāre reviewing sites across the UK to develop innovative business models using bitcoin mining. Our aim is to raise funds to create proof-of-concept projects that use stranded energy to power local agriculture and factories.
If youāve got a few sats to spare, weād greatly appreciate the support by donating to our Geyser Fund. š§”ā”ļø
nostr:npub1kmwdmhuxvafg05dyap3qmy42jpwztrv9p0uvey3a8803ahlwtmnsnhxqk9
https://geyser.fund/project/bpukminingandsustainability
Not entirely sure, but the Mosuo people come to mind.
The Silent Attack on British Democracy? My Reflections from the Front Line of the CBDC Debate
As the co-founder, director, and Head of Mining and Energy at Bitcoin Policy UK, I've monitored the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies through countless panels and forums over the last 18 months.
Historically, my calls for a balanced debate on CBDCs were met with scepticism, often dismissed by both The Digital Pound Foundation and the Bank of England, which refused to engage.
However, a shift occurred recently. In July, the Digital Pound Foundation invited my co-founder and Head of Policy, Freddie New ( nostr:npub1wl39ydk5rpecvtrzhq67afl9ykn2ty2xdxdkfmyan0rss3f3ma5sndznlx ), to speak at one of their panels. Freddie brought fresh insights to the panel, including Chaumian eCash, emphasising the need for a balanced debate.
Our latest event, "CBDCs: The Silent Attack on British Democracy?" held at The Legatum Institute, brought these issues into sharper focus. David Rennie from the Digital Pound Foundation attendedāan act of bravery given the room's unanimous scepticism towards CBDCs. Previously, we had been sidelined from such discussions by the Foundation.
David, while a proponent of CBDCs, shares many of our privacy concerns, acknowledging the issues of media manipulation and the commoditisation of personal data. His openness to our perspectives on privacy was refreshing, though I find it slightly naĆÆve. Individuals like David are well-intentioned, even if influenced by centralised control.
David stressed that the UK's CBDC design is still under discussion. He values programmability and believes it is essential for addressing issues like money laundering. While we diverge on the necessity and potential overreach of CBDCs, finding common ground on many aspects, differing primarily in our faith in the governance systems, was reassuring.
Last night's event reinforced that meaningful dialogue is possible. We must recognise the nuanced positions of individuals like David, navigating complex issues with genuine intent for public good.
David supports a digital pound that is well-designed in terms of its technical, operational, and governance structures. Although I remain sceptical given the track record of other countries and the apparent lack of understanding from our institutions, it gave me hope to see his good intentions.
We will continue to advocate for a financial framework that respects individual liberties and addresses the risks of centralisation. The journey is long, but the dialogue at events like these ensures that all voices, however critical, are part of shaping the future of our financial systems.
CBDCs still concern me deeply, and I will do everything in my power to oppose them. It was reassuring to know there are well-intentioned people on the other side, however misguided.
Through all these discussions and conferences, one thing remains crystal clear to me: Bitcoin is inevitable, and I have no doubt it. None of the proposed solutions even come close to matching its potential. ā”ļø
The Silent Attack on British Democracy? My Reflections from the Front Line of the CBDC Debate
As the co-founder, director, and Head of Mining and Energy at Bitcoin Policy UK, I've monitored the development of Central Bank Digital Currencies through countless panels and forums over the last 18 months.
Historically, my calls for a balanced debate on CBDCs were met with scepticism, often dismissed by both The Digital Pound Foundation and the Bank of England, which refused to engage.
However, a shift occurred recently. In July, the Digital Pound Foundation invited my co-founder and Head of Policy, Freddie New ( nostr:npub1wl39ydk5rpecvtrzhq67afl9ykn2ty2xdxdkfmyan0rss3f3ma5sndznlx ), to speak at one of their panels. Freddie brought fresh insights to the panel, including Chaumian eCash, emphasising the need for a balanced debate.
Our latest event, "CBDCs: The Silent Attack on British Democracy?" held at The Legatum Institute, brought these issues into sharper focus. David Rennie from the Digital Pound Foundation attendedāan act of bravery given the room's unanimous scepticism towards CBDCs. Previously, we had been sidelined from such discussions by the Foundation.
David, while a proponent of CBDCs, shares many of our privacy concerns, acknowledging the issues of media manipulation and the commoditisation of personal data. His openness to our perspectives on privacy was refreshing, though I find it slightly naĆÆve. Individuals like David are well-intentioned, even if influenced by centralised control.
David stressed that the UK's CBDC design is still under discussion. He values programmability and believes it is essential for addressing issues like money laundering. While we diverge on the necessity and potential overreach of CBDCs, finding common ground on many aspects, differing primarily in our faith in the governance systems, was reassuring.
Last night's event reinforced that meaningful dialogue is possible. We must recognise the nuanced positions of individuals like David, navigating complex issues with genuine intent for public good.
David supports a digital pound that is well-designed in terms of its technical, operational, and governance structures. Although I remain sceptical given the track record of other countries and the apparent lack of understanding from our institutions, it gave me hope to see his good intentions.
We will continue to advocate for a financial framework that respects individual liberties and addresses the risks of centralisation. The journey is long, but the dialogue at events like these ensures that all voices, however critical, are part of shaping the future of our financial systems.
CBDCs still concern me deeply, and I will do everything in my power to oppose them. It was reassuring to know there are well-intentioned people on the other side, however misguided.
Through all these discussions and conferences, one thing remains crystal clear to me: Bitcoin is inevitable, and I have no doubt it. None of the proposed solutions even come close to matching its potential. ā”ļø
Matriarchies tend to prioritise community and shared power, while patriarchies are typically more hierarchical.
Is there evidence that one produces better societal outcomes?
š§”
Funny you should say that, Iām on my way to a CBDC event now.
A year ago, I wrote an article forĀ City AM, raising alarm bells about how children would be used to justify increasing online control under the pretence of protection. I warned that while laws like the Online Safety Bill may seem noble, they pave the way for overreach and the erosion of our freedoms.
Now, with the Australian PM stepping in on similar issues, itās clear the trend is accelerating. The more we surrender control, under the pretence of convenience or safety, the more we loseāand it's not just affecting us, it's shaping the world our kids are growing up in.
As a parent, Iām struggling with the reality that Iāve handed my kids a dangerous deviceāa smartphoneāone that society has normalised. It weighs heavily on me. The world is so focused on COVID, yet seems blind to the real epidemic: the pervasive influence of smartphones on all aspects of our lives.
I fully appreciate the need for decentralised social media. In fact, when I shared my thoughts on the harms of social media on X, the post appeared to be shadow-banned. I know Nostr plays a key role in the fight against censorship, but how do we protect children from the darker sides of social media on platforms like Nostr?
If itās solely the responsibility of parents, the next generation of children could be at serious risk.
Iām reminded of how our freedoms are being eroded when Iām forced to use a cash till at the supermarket, realising how we trade away freedom for convenience in every corner of life. Weāre slowly surrendering control, and itās no different with our kids.
We say itās for protecting children, but our children are far from safe. The dangers are real, and we turn a blind eye. If we stop them from participating in whatās ānormal,ā they face social isolation.
Yes, parents should take responsibility. But letās be honest: itās not happening. So, now what?
Governments claim theyāre stepping in to stop misinformation, but we all know who the biggest culprits areāthe ones with power.
From the moment my kids were born, my instinct has been to protect them. But how can we say no when homework is assigned through apps and phones becomes essential? Itās a trap. I left my old career because I couldnāt turn a blind eye to what I saw happening, and now I find myself reluctantly accepting the evil of this tech-dominated world.
Even adults struggle to regulate themselves with this tech. How can we expect kids to manage? Parents donāt seem to grasp the magnitude of whatās happening.
Weāve normalised a tech designed to be addictive, bombarding our kids with violence, porn, and unrealistic expectations. Billionaires who design these tools keep their kids away from themāwhat does that tell us?
This generation is drowningāsad, depressed, and lost. What are we going to do about it?
Parents need to step up. Weāre the adults here. The government canāt fix this for us, and expecting them to will only strip away more of our freedoms. Iām genuinely terrified for our kids, and it feels like no one else sees whatās really happening.
From food to information, our entire world is poisoned. Bitcoin might be part of the solution, but thatās a conversation for another day.
How do we protect our children without sacrificing our freedoms? The current system isnāt workingāparents are overwhelmed, governments are overreaching, and tech giants are exploiting the very tools that shape our kids' lives.
We need to find a solution, weāre leaving the next generation to navigate a dangerous and addictive digital world alone.
The question Iām asking myself is: āHow do we ensure our kids grow up safe, informed, and free?ā
https://www.cityam.com/i-see-the-online-safety-bill-as-a-digital-double-edged-sword/
I listened to this conversation on nostr:nprofile1qqsysux42q9py8j3sa2y50nwtsh7u8g2q0sms5rn7fldkugtzyxkyzqpzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzxnhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehhyctwvajhq6tvdshxgetkq47nsg with nostr:nprofile1qqsd2s26xy7ns3sllyagc9c0jsdje49xdfw0mwcfxsrfvrmvkvtcf8cpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgewaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8g6r9wdsk6etrv96zu6t0qyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehw6r9wfjjucm0d5vjue67 nostr:nprofile1qqstm84k2lp9knmvmf5gw88zvfvar7duvfpqfplryfystdn55ug2gkspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsq2q4kj and nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wf6xcutrvyu8ydnpw4ukzae4dc6ksvmvx56ryvnyd568xunex4j85en9v56rvwfkveck2wrnxeckwatyddenwer2w3n8x0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2qg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpds64sgpc today.
Without a doubt I have been caught up in the left/right squabbling in a way which has not served anybody.
Any time I label myself or anyone else with some sort of collective title it leads to hyperbolic divisive discourse which is more akin to fighting ghosts and engaging in straw man debates than it is solving real world issues.
I am still working to reframe the way I think and speak about these topics, which may take some time, but I'm glad conversations like this are taking place. It's very healing.
nostr:nprofile1qqsthy887pf36j465w0ls5y32a6rf7m06whlnnacmgn4rx0zg845alcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz5nfzh helped me with this a lot as well š
I loved our discussions and how thoughtful you were. It made me test my thesis too.
Iām not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that thereās a difference between ācleanā and ādirtyā CO2. The focus of these studies is on reducing and managing carbon emissions.
New studies confirm bitcoin miningās role in reducing carbon emissions, challenging flawed research and sensational media headlines.
My latest Forbes article featuring research from the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Digital Asset Research Institute. #Bitcoin
Agreed, but unfortunately, there are large swaths of people who donāt see it.
BBC's bitcoin coverage exposes a lack of sufficient fact-checking and reveals bias, raising concerns about its accuracy and accountability.
My latest piece in Forbes featuring BBC nostr:npub1trr5r2nrpsk6xkjk5a7p6pfcryyt6yzsflwjmz6r7uj7lfkjxxtq78hdpu nostr:npub13lkyycj8s3da6fhndtj0wd6s3s2ahmq86s7wrruvzd4tnc66cgfqn4lpsy #Bitcoin
Iām really glad to see this topic getting the attention it deserves.
We discussed the risks of centralised mining, home mining solutions & innovations in heat reuse tech.
https://youtu.be/PT3Yqx_jDRw?si=92_KsQFruJS18fPP
