Talk:Bitcoin

RFC on energy use estimates in the LEAD

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Statement

Shall we including this statement diff in the LEAD: "and was responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." (or similar)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, the statement (and other similar and often cited statements related to digiconomist.net) are anchored by a group of mostly students that seem to promote themselves as climate activists and influencers related to this position.

• Alex de Vries: operator of often cited digiconomist.net. He is PHD candidate and his linkedin refers to himself as "Global influencer"
• Ulrich Gallersdörfer: Lecturer at Technical University of Munich and founder of the "Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute" according to his linkedin.
• Lena Klaaßen: PHD candidate at ETH Zurich according to her linkedin and her school website
• Christian Stoll: seems to be a "former student" according to MIT. Do we have an actual position for this person?

Are we contributing to these students fame by citing it with this weight? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The journal Joule is published by Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.

As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:

• Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition
• Up in smoke: Considerations for lithium-ion batteries in disposable e-cigarettes

So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a WP:PREPRINT as Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.

Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.

I also agree with JPxG's comment above. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count 20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".

It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).

Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).

The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the debate, this recently published paper Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review mentions that de Vries' analysis "has been widely criticized for its oversimplified view of mining operations and dependence on anecdotal examples to back the assumption". They explain further in the article what they consider are weaknesses of de Vries' estimate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have requested a close by an uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that was the way to do it. Actually Jtbobwaysf had already done it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request. Nemov (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Polling

• Remove from WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is WP:PROMO of WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral tending towards remove: per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY + per JPxG (yes it's whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as WP:WIKIVOICE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove Not from peer reviewed source and not WP:SIGNIFICANT207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited 90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The CNBC citation you added cites the White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Retain, and coverage of the topic should be expanded in the body because of its importance. One paragraph tucked away in the Mining section is not adequate for this facet with an article of its own. It will be easier to incorporate it into the lead when it is addressed properly in the body. 3df (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. Per my discussion comment. Get a proper RS, see what they say, then reform. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove from lead for MOS:LEADREL, but retain in article. The source seems strong enough for inclusion (per A455bcd9's discussion comment) to establish that such estimates exist, but does not establish that this estimate is a central fact about Bitcoin worthy of inclusion in the lead.Carleas (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove from the lead but can include in the article if reliable sources are cited. NihonGoBashi (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove as per Antoine in the Discussion section (though I don't think it's a RS due to the lack of peer review). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

XBT lol?

absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.

googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.

no one calls BTC XBT

whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.

141.151.92.241 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code. Vgbyp (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

NYSE ETF rigged

Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any? Vgbyp (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Spergerrand" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spergerrand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Spergerrand until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Context

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.

Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.

Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL

Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. TheSavageNorwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

Please remove this sentence:

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]

and replace it with this one:

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]

Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph. Vgbyp (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)