Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin

Move

This article was created according to a discussion at the Bitcoin Talk Page by moving some content from the Bitcoin article to this article. For the list of the content's contributors, see the Bitcoin article history.

--Thereisnous (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added the ewaste part back to Bitcoin because we cannot leave it out there. As for this article if it should make any sense as a stand-alone article it should 1) give an overview of the discussion in the CC community 2) cite sources that compare the environmental impact of different CCs and 3) explain how policy makers ans political leaders have tackled the environmental impact of CCs (excessive consumption of dirty energy and air pollution etc). CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

better coverage

This page was taken from the Bitcoin page, so was all about Bitcoin. I have:

• broadened intro and added WSJ ref
• added Bitcoin, mining, etc to headings
• added section on PoS and other network types
• moved Chia into section on PoS and other network types
• standardised on capitalised BitcoinGreyStar456 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Core theis

Do we have sources that state this?

"The main environmental impact of bitcoin is that it worsens climate change."

Or is this a WP:SYNTH based upon the statement that follows it?: "This is because bitcoin are made using electricity generated by gas-fired and coal-fired power plants."

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost all sources only mention that environmental impact so I would be very surprised if anyone said that anything else was its main environmental impact. I suspect that they do not say ‘main environmental impact’ because its other environmental impacts are too small nowadays for almost all sources to mention. I am not an American but from what I read I understand the US has very strict controls these days on local pollution from coal power and coal mining. However I will root around a bit more and see if I can find a source which specifically says that GHG is the main environmental impact.

Digression: Having said that I should probably also take a look at Energy in Kazakhstan and polish that up a little in case bitcoin mining becomes more popular there. You think Kazakhstan will be able to import new mining rigs in future? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

As I suspected IEA says “ Many of Kazakhstan’s coal-fired power plants are old, inefficient and highly polluting.” Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Just found Talk:Electronic waste in the United States so have asked there how much of a problem bitcoin ewaste is Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please review the above SYNTH link that I posted. We must comply with this policy. Please see if you can find sources that support above claims. For example 'Bitcoin consumes electricity, bitcoin is mined in Kazakstan, Kazakstan gets electricity from coal, burning coal creates carbon emissions' and therefore we will make the claim that bitcoin creates carbon emissions is classic SYNTH. I dont doubt that there may be sources to support the actual claim, but the sources are required to be put in the article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the problem? Are you contesting this claim yourself, or are you saying that it must be sourced because it could hypothetically be contested? Per MOS:LEAD, the lede should be written in more general language than the body of the article. As a summary of the rest of this article, this sentence seems perfectly fine to me. Bitcoin mining, currently, per countless reliable sources, damages the climate. The purpose of the lead isn't to equivocate on exactly how much it damages the climate, or how this will change in the future. Any claims that it doesn't actually damage the climate are WP:FRINGE as they are contesting the academic consensus on climate change. If this is really your position, I would suggest we bring this up with WP:FRINGEN. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If there are many sources to this claim, just add one please. No need to explain why it is missing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I amended the lead to add local air pollution from coal-fired power and to remove the ranking of the different environmental impacts. I am pretty sure the ewaste is the smallest impact but I don’t have a cite to say so. You guys almost certainly know more about bitcoin than I do so may have some idea about whether the distribution of mining by country will change much next year - if so it would likely change the amount of local air pollution. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The article starts with "One environmental impact of bitcoin is that it worsens climate change" but then goes on to discuss e-waste. I dont think e-waste is directly tied to climate change. Maybe the first sentence should be amended to make the article more of a catch all for various environmental issues relating to bitcoin? At least until there is an article about bitcoin e-waste (if it is ever notable enough to warrant an article). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt bitcoin ewaste will ever need its own article. Can you suggest a better first sentence here on the talk page? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Were some of my changes accidentally undone?

Hello @David Gerard

For your change

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_impact_of_bitcoin&type=revision&diff=1118767404&oldid=1118759461

you commented ‘if we have the academic cite, then we don't need some crypto blog’ and I certainly agree with your comment.

But as well as correctly removing the unneeded cite your change also undid some of my changes such as some of my shortening of the lead - I wonder if that was what you intended? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my error! I did indeed only mean to remove Cointelegrah - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. As a sysadmin are you able to easily redo my changes? If not no probs I will get around to it once I am on hardware which is easier for editing than my current iPad without mouse - hopefully within a week. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

er, not easily, it's too complex to undo and a pile of people have edited after - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see I have a ‘restore this version’ link. I have never used it before but I think it will be easier for me to redo the changes by @Jtbobwaysf and @Grayfell than to redo my changes. As I have never asked for the ability to restore an old version I assume you guys all have that power too. So if I screw up sorry and feel free to restore to the version as it is now Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Done - it would be good if you could all check now Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Article title should be sentence case

The "B" in the article title should not be capitalized. Per bitcoin, the name 'bitcoin' is typically written with sentence case (similar to the word "dollar" or "scrip" or similar). This article should reflect that, and should be Environmental impact of bitcoin. That name currently redirects to this article.

This doesn't seem like controversial enough change to justify an RFC to me, but maybe there is some objection I haven't thought of. If not, I will post to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves.

There is also the related issue that this article is arguably about the 'environmental impact of cryptocurrency' or the 'environmental impact of blockchains', with bitcoin merely being the most prominent example. Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved it to lowercase bitcoin. FunLater (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know there are nowadays no other major cryptocurrencies which use proof of work, so the environmental impact of non-Bitcoin crypto is not notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this section, which is about sentence case. This is an encyclopedia article, so things which happened in the past, and which still have lasting repercussions, are still encyclopedically significant, per countless sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Considerable

Hi Greyfell (talk · contribs), you reverted to re-add "considerable" here which failed verification. Please show where this is coming from. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you joking? It's coming from the entire article. Most sources currently cited support this. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur. No referenced source uses this term. The term considerable means notably large and really requires a frame of reference to be meaningful. In order to give proper context you need to compare Bitcoin to its closest real world analogue Gold. The CCAF states:

To provide some context, we compared Bitcoin's estimated annualised GHG emissions to those from other industry sectors and activities.

Bitcoin’s closest and most referenced real-world analogue is gold.

https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/comparisons

Nacentaeons (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that general practice is not to add citations to an article lede at all. I'm not sure why an exception has been made here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a hidden note at the top of the page saying "As the lead section is excerpted to "Bitcoin" please make sure it is properly cited". That's reasonable, but since this is already explained by template:excerpt at Bitcoin#Environmental effects I think the note does more harm than good at this point. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

So does this mean that this cite is not applicable to the statement considerable? If nobody knows why it is there, then it should be removed. Which source says it is considerable btw? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert of my edits

I'm about to undo the reversion of my well-sourced edit that was done in this edit. The only reason given is "weasel words", but instead of weasel words being removed, the entire edit was reverted. This is not acceptable behavior. I don't see any attempt to start a discussion about this on the talk page, so I'm starting one now. @User:Greyfell please do not continue edit warring without engaging in discussion on the topic and coming to a consensus. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying text left on my talk page here below. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

As I'm sure you can guess, the article for Environmental effects of bitcoin is contentious, and the lead is a product of compromise and discussion. Obviously the article's talk page is the place to go into detail, but I don't think calling saying "The environmental effects of bitcoin are highly controversial" is going to work for a few reasons. In addition to WP:WEASEL linked in my edit summary, implying that bitcoin isn't harmful to the environment is a WP:FRINGE position, so 'both sides' should not be presented as equivalent. It's also too vague. I would encourage you to start a discussion on the article's talk page about the other changes you made. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL does not apply here. It is quite clear that the environmental effects of bitcoin are controversial and that significant sources do not agree. I have provided several such reliable sources in my edit. Furthermore, none of what I wrote implies that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment, however it does state the facts that some significant and reliable sources do not agree with specific claims related to bitcoin's environmental impact. Its ironic you tell me "its also too vague" when you don't even make it clear what "it" you're talking about, and your complaints are incredibly vague as to what words are weasel words and what exactly implies bitcoin isn't harmful to the environment. Please make your arguments more clear and we can discuss. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What is and is not "significant" is decided by reliable sources and consensus, not by unreliable sources and suggestive wording about what WP:FRINGE "proponents of bitcoin claim". As I said, presenting both sides as equivalent is misrepresenting what many already-cited sources say about this issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All the sources in my original edit that you reverted are reliable sources. I have now repeatedly asked you for specifics as to what I have misrepresented and what statements are at issue. If you cannot tell me which are at issue so we can discuss, then we have nothing to discuss. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As explained at WP:BRD, the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes, and I asked you to start a discussion on your talk page for this reason.

In addition to the issues I mentioned on your talk page, citing unreliable sources like "BTCTimes" for filler language like "proponents of bitcoin dispute this claim as inaccurate" is unacceptable. Per WP:FRINGE, it is not appropriate to 'balance-out' reliable sources with vague, unreliable claims by involved parties. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell here. Fresheneesz's edit was questionable, and per WP:BRD, reverting it was entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreyFell A discussion on my talk page is not appropriate. The appropriate place for discussion is here on this article's talk page.

You claim WP:FRINGE is relevant here, but I have reliable sources on basically everything I've written there. Your claim of WP:FRINGE sounds to me like original research. If you think my edits have problems, then you need to bring them up specifically. The only specific issues you have brought up is my use of BTCTimes which was not included in the first edit you reverted. Do you have other specific complaints about my edits? @AndyTheGrump your agreement holds little water in consensus decision making unless you describe your reasoning. What specifically is wrong with my edits? Fresheneesz (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong? Per Grayfell, weasel-worded fringe-POV-promoting content citing unreliable sources. And read MOS:LEDE - the lede is supposed to summarise the content of the article body, not introduce material not discussed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You are not being specific which is entirely unhelpful. Read my response to Grayfell. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I specifically said Obviously the article's talk page is the place to go into detail. I posted on your talk page as a courtesy, to get the discussion started, with the understanding that this should be continued here.

As for the other problems with you change, here's one additional issue among several: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector doesn't mention cryptocurrency, so using it here is a WP:SYNTH issue. Specifically, that source was used to introduce a non-neutral comparison as a form of editorializing, as it falsely implies bitcoin has a level of real-world significance comparable to agriculture or steel. (Comparisons of bitcoin's energy consumption to different countries are commonly made by reliable, independent sources, and cryptocurrency and countries can both be seen as financial entities.) Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I very much disagree that the statement I added was "non netural" and I disagree that making comparisons of one unit implies comparison of significance. But let's then agree to remove the statement sourced by that ourworldindata.org source. Let's also agree to remove the statement sourced by BTCTimes. If those statements are removed, do you object to any of the other material?

I'd like to note that it is very much bad form to simply revert entire edits because you think this or that small part of the edits is unacceptable. It is quite possible for you to remove line items. Furthermore, it is also bad form to revert edits without being specific as to what's wrong with them. And wikipedia articles do not generally require talk page discussion before an edit takes place, so please don't imply that is how things are done. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Given your obvious lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies (e.g. where you describe Grayfell's comments regarding WP:FRINGE as 'original research', when WP:OR makes it entirely clear that the policy doesn't apply to talk page discussions), I don't think you are best placed to tell us what is or isn't 'bad form'. WP:BRD, while an essay rather than policy, is widely regarded as best practice when dealing with contested major revisions to articles - and it makes it clear that after the initial edit, and after a single revert, discussion should begin, with the status quo remaining until consensus can be arrived at for any change.

The fundamental issue with your revised lede is that it is based around a false-balance 'critics say' vs 'opponents say' structure, giving undue weight to questionable arguments put forward by involved promotional sources, and presenting arguments from mainstream science as if they are those of motivated 'critics'. That isn't the way the article body is structured - it would violate WP:NPOV to do so - and the lede must summarise the article body. The edit was fundamentally misguided, and demanding in-depth arguments over each and every phrase is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It's hard to know where to start with these changes. Above I said the comparison source was "one additional issue among several" because it was one example. Fresheneesz, if you do not understand the problem, providing more examples of that same underlying problem doesn't seem productive. If you have a specific issue with the current wording of the lead, take a look at this talk page's archives to see if it's already been addressed. If not, raise it here, but regardless, neutrality is not served by false balance, and sources will need to be summarized in context, not as factoids. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you providing no evidence that anything other than the 2 items already brought up represent fringe opinions and I see that neither of you in your recent comment brought up any additional problems with what I wrote, and instead you are both simply attacking my character and ability, I'm simply going to address the points you brought up in a new edit. You can then decide to actually bring up specifics or I will simply continue to edit and open an arbitration case if you refuse to cooperatively discuss changes. Your aggressive and explicitly uncooperative behavior and ad hominem engagement is not appropriate. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have to suggest that arbitration would be grossly premature. And very likely to backfire on you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have explained the problems with your edits. You have introduced WP:WEASEL words and non-neutral false equivalence. Additionally, you have misrepresented cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Since Talk:Bitcoin#LEAD NPOV issues was recent and appeared to have been prompted by a post to reddit, I decided to check and see if that was the case again. I found this post which speaks for itself. Being recruited into an ideological dispute is a form of meatpuppetry. Fresheneesz, please carefully review Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry (as well as WP:CANVASS) and consider how you want to approach this. WP:GAMING the system is inappropriate even if you follow the letter of WP:3RR. Obviously, you should also review WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. Normally that would've gone without saying, but from the comments on that reddit thread it's worth emphasizing. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider anything the crypto-booster-bros on Reddit have to say on this article, or on anything else, even worthy of discussion, and would suggest treating Fresheneesz's contributions on their own (clearly questionable) merits rather than getting sidetracked by unverifiable claims of 'meatpuppetry'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, this isn't unverifiable. The usernames match. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd missed that. Discussions regarding meatpuppetry don't belong here though. Best take it to WP:ANI if you think it is worth it. I can't see real evidence for anything that would count as meatpuppetry by most standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, discussing this here isn't particularly productive. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Your accusations of meatpuppetry are honestly embarassing. I have been a wikipedia editor for at least as long as you and I have the right to be motivated to edit certain articles by conversations online. Please stop being a wiki-lawyer busy body and just focus on whether the information is well sourced, accurate, and well written. Your discussion of meatpuppetry is really disgusting. You're not assuming good faith, and frankly you're being an unpleasant jerk. Stop it. We could have worked amiably together to fix my edits, but instead you're taking an antagonistic approach. Its not cool GreyFell. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're in any position to accuse anyone else of being antagonistic, and your opinion of my coolness is irrelevant.

The information you have added is shallowly-sourced and is not accurate to those sources you have chosen to cite. The information you've added is also conspicuously incomplete. Your edits have damaged the article regardless of how long you've been an editor.

For several of these problems, you've responded with "I do not agree" or similar, but this isn't enough to actually change consensus. You are clearly already aware of WP:3RR, but repeatedly restoring this false balance is still edit warring. You cannot edit war to add your preferred wording while blowing-off legitimate concerns about the problems this introduces.

Since you just don't agree with broad explanations, I will use yet another example: For Ireland, the source mentions Ireland's electricity use compared to bitcoin's in 2018 (bitcoin's energy usage has increased since then, and no, it doesn't actually matter whether or not some of this is green energy). The source does not compared it to Kansas. Instead, it is contrasting the electricity usage to Kansas's carbon footprint, which is mentioned several paragraphs later. Picking one detail from one paragraph, stripping it from its context while adding your own, and then jumping to a different point later in the source and also stripping that context, is both editorializing and WP:SYNTH.

Comparisons of bitcoin's usage to countries is as a frame-of-reference so people can start to intuitively understand just how much electricity is used. It is not, as should be obvious, a comparison of functionality. If the people of Kansas or Ireland choose pay their power bills with bitcoin, in addition to grinding the network to a standstill for several days, at best, it would also consume dramatically more electricity for no global benefit whatsoever. Sources understand that these comparisons are for scale, and direct comparisons do not make any sense at all.

By cherry-picking a single comparatively obscure source from a single time-point and presenting that as "often compared to" you have used editorializing language to imply that this is a subjective comparison, which further casts doubt on this position. While the specific numbers are disputed and constantly shifting, this is not a subjective comparison, it is not credibly contested that bitcoin mining consumes the same amount of electricity as a country, and that remains true regardless of how "often" it is mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on your points related to my edits.

> "you've responded with "I do not agree" or similar, but this isn't enough to actually change consensus"

The first time I disagreed, I conceded the point for the moment. The second and most recent time I did so, my assertion of "I do not agree" came with reasoning. Please don't be disingenuous.

> "repeatedly restoring this false balance is still edit warring"

I am addressing the feedback on my edits from you and Andy. This is very clearly not edit warring. The edits are substantially different from the originals.

> "it is contrasting the electricity usage to Kansas's carbon footprint"

Ok, fair point. I have corrected that. I appreciate bringing it up rather than reverting entire edits.

> "that remains true regardless of how "often" it is mentioned"

You well know that we aren't arguing about what is "true" here, but instead what is reported by reliable sources. How often reliable sources report thing is indeed relevant to content writing on wikipedia. We could argue plenty about what is actually true, but this is not the venue for it. Fresheneesz (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I've separated out the conversations about each of the edits. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Off-grid energy

Let's discuss this edit. You claim that "certain companies" is too vague, and yet if I actually wrote the company referred to in the article you clearly would object to it being a promotion for that company. You can't have it both ways. I can report what's in the source or I can leave it vaugue. But removing the information because of your personal feelings about "promoting" some company on wikipedia is not sufficient reasoning to revert my work there. There are numerous sources that can verify bitcoin mining using off-grid gas that would otherwise be flared or release is being done:

• https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/23-year-old-texans-made-4-million-mining-bitcoin-off-flared-natural-gas.html
• https://engineering.tamu.edu/news/2022/03/etid-how-two-former-students-started-mining-bitcoin-fueled-by-flared-natural-gas.html
• https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/oil-drillers-bitcoin-miners-bond-over-natural-gas-2021-05-21/
• https://fortune.com/2022/03/30/exxon-bitcoin-mining-gas-flares-crypto-electricity/

Take your pick. So does the edit need more sources or does it need a wording change? Fresheneesz (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly the best source listed above is the Fortune article (non-paywall archive link here [1]) The one that describes the use of gas that would otherwise be flared to power Bitcoin mining as "a novel but dubious solution". Then explains why it is dubious, and could quite possibly have in negative consequences "...building a new industry around gas leaks creates a financial incentive for maintaining them...Selling gas leaks instead of flaring them could also allow oil majors like Exxon to technically write down their own carbon emissions by shifting responsibility to their new customers, instead of genuinely eliminating the issue..." That's actual thought-out commentary on the Bitcoin-from-flares technology, not just uncritical regurgitation of what the promotors have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

While looking for additional sources, I found these:

• Calma, Justine (4 May 2022). "Why fossil fuel companies see green in Bitcoin mining projects". The Verge. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
• Carleton, Audrey (17 March 2022). "Inside a Bitcoin Mine at a Natural Gas Well In Texas". Vice. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
• Jaffe, Mark (29 August 2022). "Oil and gas and cryptocurrency miners are Colorado's new odd couple. And they're making quite a bit of coin". The Colorado Sun. Retrieved 12 October 2023.

The last one adds some interesting context: The stakes in Colorado are different. The state is rich in pipelines to carry away oil and gas, but it also has a ban on flaring, the burning off of natural gas from wells. If an operator can’t connect to a gas pipeline or find some other use for the gas — under state rules — the well must be shut down. In other words, flaring is not an unavoidable necessity, it is a cost-cutting convenience for oil companies, and it is not legal in all places. So these start-ups are, in practice, allowing bitcoin buyers to partially subsidize drilling for oil strictly for financial speculation. Without these subsidies, these wells would either remain untapped, or the gas would have to be put to some other, non-speculative use in the future.

I also found this one, which is not directly related to gas flaring, but seems useful anyway:

• Wendl, Moritz; Doan, My Hanh; Sassen, Remmer (January 2023). "The environmental impact of cryptocurrencies using proof of work and proof of stake consensus algorithms: A systematic review". Journal of Environmental Management. 326: 116530. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116530.

Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finding additional sources. All of those sources support the statements made in the edit in question that you removed Grayfell. So how about we add back the edit with those additional sources? You both are speculating on the "dubious" benefit of doing these kinds of things, but all the sources we've collected agree that using uncapturable methane to mine bitcoin is happening, which is all the edit in question said. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The issue is how do we summarize this in context. Your initial edit used an opinion source to present this as an isolated factoid without context. Our goal is to explain, per reliable, independent sources, why this information belongs in an article about the environmental effects of bitcoin. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the edit doesn't have information that makes it clear why the information is relevant? Well, originally I did make it clear, but that edit was removed first. I've moved the discussion of that edit to its own subsection (Methane burning being carbon negative). I'm still waiting to hear a response about that edit. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources already cited in this discussion specifically dispute the glib, greenwashing characterization of crypto-mining via gas flaring as "carbon negative". If you cannot be bothered to read the sources you would have us cite, you are not in any position to explain what content is and is not relevant. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your continued personal attacks are really pissing me off Grayfell. Claiming I didn't bother to read the sources I'm citing and asserting that I'm "not in any position" to explain something is completely rude and way off base. You've continued using this shitty attitude and I'm tired of it. I'm not attacking you. I'm not insulting you. You're becoming more and more erratic and bringing up weaker and weaker points. So start behaving like an adult. I don't want to have to escalate this.

The discussion relevant to your last comment is in a different section and I'm going to keep that discussion there.

But your reasoning that the edit in question in *this* section was removed is not valid. It is obvious why methane powered bitcoin mining is relevant to the environment. It either has a positive effect as I originally wrote, or a negative effect like you claim. It does not simply have a neutral effect and so I'll be readding it. If you'd like to qualify it, go right ahead. Your arguments are pure wikilawyering and it does not seem like you're doing this in good faith. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Fortune, which you introduced to this discussion: Methane is a more potent insulator than carbon dioxide so Crusoe says its system—which reduces methane emissions by roughly 7 percentage points—reduces CO2-equivalent emissions by 63% compared to flaring. That is good but, just on a technical note, is not the same as reducing CO2 emissions.[2] (emphasis added)

From the next paragraph: At best, converting flares to electricity provides a valuable, mostly temporary patch for gas leaks. At worst, building a new industry around gas leaks creates a financial incentive for maintaining them.

And from the next paragraph: Selling gas leaks instead of flaring them could also allow oil majors like Exxon to technically write down their own carbon emissions by shifting responsibility to their new customers, instead of genuinely eliminating the issue.

To present this as "carbon negative" is both factually incorrect and also repeats greenwashing talking-points from both the oil and crypto industries.

This is just a sample of what multiple sources are saying, and there is plenty more to work with. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You're getting your wires crossed. The edit in question in this section is not related to the "carbon negative" stuff. Try again please. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Above, you claim it was a "personal attack" when I say that your own sources do not support your proposed wording. The subsection in question was reverted in two edits by two editors, but this doesn't really change the underlying problem, so focusing on which section it is discussed is missing the point. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to propose content here so we can discuss it.

Some bitcoin mining is done using energy created by off-grid generators using methane that would otherwise be flared or released into the atmoshere, for example from oil production. This process allows off-grid methane to be monetized while at the same time more completely burning the methane than traditional gas flaring usually results in, which in turn reduces the contribution of the byproducts to the greenhouse effect in comparision. Environmental group Earthworks confirmed that the generators of off-grid methane Crusoe "do appear to be more effective" than gas flaring. Several sources stress that even if releasing CO2 is better than more potent methane into the atmosophere, this still results in harmful emissions and that monetizing previously unmonitized gas makes incentivizes more fossil fuel extraction. For example in the state of Colorado, which bans flaring, bitcoin mining using off-grid methane has allowed companies to drill in places that would not be cost effective to connect a gas pipeline.

Please let me know what objections you have. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you have announced plans to preemptively ignore my concerns as "BS" it's kind of hard to expect you to listen to those objections in good faith. With that said, my major concerns are the use of the Bloomberg opinion article and the cherry-picked quote from Earthworks. Here is my rewrite of the same content which addresses some of my concerns. It is more detailed, maybe too detailed, but since this is a complicated issue, hopefully some background context will make it easier to understand:

Bitcoin has been mined via electricity generated through the burning of associated petroleum gas (APG), which is a byproduct of crude oil drilling. In locations where excess APG is not profitable to capture and process, the gas can be vented, which directly releases methane (a potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere; flared, which converts much of it into carbon dioxide (a less potent greenhouse gas) before releasing; or captured and fully processed. Some jurisdictions do not allow venting or flaring, instead requiring capture or more comprehensive processing. In places without easy access to a pipeline, this processing is more complicated and expensive, but can also generate some electricity. This electricity can then be used for other purposes in the immediate area, including mining bitcoin via mobile mining "rigs" containing computers and generators.

Both independent bitcoin mining companies and major oil companies have mined bitcoin in this way. In places where flaring is prohibited (such as Colorado) this practice has allowed more oil drills to operate by offsetting costs. In places where flaring or venting is permitted, bitcoin mining has subsidized the conversion of methane into carbon dioxide. This has decreasing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, and also allowed oil companies such as ExxonMobile to write-down these carbon emissions for reporting purposes.

This article is about the environmental effects of bitcoin, not 'monetization of oil drills' so have shifted focus accordingly. I have tried to neutrally explain what is happening and why it matters to this topic. I have also adjusted the cite to the Colorado Sun article, as I assume this was an error. I notice now that The Colorado Sun's article mentions that the outlet was started from "funding from blockchain venture capitalists", but let's set that aside for the moment. The Texas A&M source seems like the kind of softball alum profile used by schools to promote themselves, and while technically reliable in some context, I see no use for it here. The CNBC and Vice ones did not seem useful either, but both may be reliable, depending. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that is too much general exposition about APG. I think most of that exposition should be left to the APG article itself. I would have appreciated your alternative more if you had used even a single thing I wrote, but instead you're replacing it wholesale. I think the bulk of my writing is more accurate and more precise. For example "subsidized the conversion of methane into carbon dioxide" is not precise (ie no actual subsidization is happening) and "This has decreasing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions" is also imprecise (because it might imply that a lower volume of greenhouse is emitted, when that isn't necessarily the case nor the point). And "to write-down these carbon emissions" is not a clear way of describing that. Taking a number of your suggestions and some of your text, here's an updated passage:

Bitcoin has been mined via electricity generated through the combustion of associated petroleum gas (APG), which is a methane-rich byproduct of crude oil drilling that is often flared or released into the atmoshere. This process allows this APG to be monetized while at the same time more completely burning the contained methane than traditional gas flaring usually results in, which in turn reduces the contribution of the byproducts to the greenhouse effect in comparision. This has also allowed oil companies such as ExxonMobile to shift the remaining greenhouse gas emissions off their reports and onto the company doing the bitcoin mining. Environmental group Earthworks confirmed that the APG generators operated by Crusoe "do appear to be more effective" than gas flaring. Several sources stress that even if releasing CO2 is better than more-potent APG into the atmosophere, this still results in harmful emissions and that monetizing previously unmonitized gas makes incentivizes more fossil fuel extraction. In places where flaring is prohibited (such as Colorado) this practice has allowed more oil drills to operate by offsetting costs.

I removed the Texas A&M source and the CNBC source because there are enough sources. But the Vice one does add a second source to one of the statements made.

Regarding cherrypicking, please explain to me how stating what is written in the article about Earthworks is cherry picking. The way I see it, *not* including that is more akin to cherrypicking than using that info. There is nothing in these sources to contradict that claim, so what are you talking about?

Also, your comment about shifting the focus away from "monetization of oil drills" is simply not true. The focus is clearly not on that, it is mentioned once as one of the primary reasons for doing this kind of mining, and only mentioned again specifically for the related claims about the environment. If you're averse to the term "monetization", please suggest a more accurate alternative. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It is cherry-picking because the importance of "Crusoe" was decided by you, not by the source. You have not even explained what Crusoe is or why it's relevant. One single person within the EarthWorks group was making one off-hand comment, about a single location, in contrast to "some of the worst, most inefficient combustion I’ve seen in the state". It's also cherry-picking to present this quote as authoritative despite not explaining who EarthWorks is are or why their assessment is significant.

As for the rest of your proposal, the process of bitcoin mining doesn't allow more methane to be burned, it just pays for more methane to be burned. This is a subsidy to oil drillers. As I said, my wording may be overly-detailed, but it does clarify that bitcoin is a middle-man here, and it plays no technical role in oil drilling at all. This may seem obvious, but I do not accept that this will be clear to all or most readers. As we both know, and as countless sources explain, a bitcoin doesn't indicate where or how its electricity was generated, nor the electricity for any transactions it's had. It doesn't know if it's cheap, expensive, or stolen, nor if its clean or dirty. As these sources also explain, the only reason bitcoin miners are involved in oil-drilling is to get access to cheaper electricity. This particular electricity is harmful to the environment, but not as harmful as the cheapest alternatives, which happen to be illegal on many places for this reason. Whatever term you want to use, this is functionally a subsidy to oil drilling, either by directly compensating them for the gas, or by allowing them to avoid fines for drilling illegally, or for greenwashing purposes such as with ExxonMobile.

This is, incidentally, EarthWorks' position. They lobby against greenwashing and for strong rules against venting and flaring. If the organization itself has mentioned bitcoin at all, I haven't seen it. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to not know what WP:Cherrypicking is: "cherrypicking ... means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says". Deciding importance has nothing to do with cherry picking. If you think undue weight has been put on Crusoe, we can discuss that, but I don't believe a mere mention as an example gives it undue weight. If you think these organizations haven't been explained well enough, again, that's not what cherrypicking is, but you may have a point that Crusoe could be explained better. Earthworks is identified as an environmental group, which I think is sufficient. If you don't agree, please explain your reasoning and a suggestion for improvement would help. I've updated the wording below to make it clear who from Earthworks specifically made that assessment. As for Crusoe, it should be clear in context that Crusoe is an organization that operates APG generators, but perhaps I can expand and say "the generators operated by one company doing APG-electric generation (Crusoe) ..." if that makes it clearer.

"the process of bitcoin mining doesn't allow more methane to be burned" - I've updated the wording below to addres that.

"This is a subsidy to oil drillers." - A subsidy is money granted by a government. You are not using the word correctly.

Here's the updated wording with those minor changes:

Bitcoin has been mined via electricity generated through the combustion of associated petroleum gas (APG), which is a methane-rich byproduct of crude oil drilling that is often flared or released into the atmoshere. Mining bitcoin in this way has in many cases made it cost-effective and profitable to use APG electric generators that would have otherwise used gas flaring. Because APG electric generators more completely burn the contained methane than gas flaring generally does, this reduces the contribution of the byproducts to the greenhouse effect when compared to flaring. This has also allowed oil companies such as ExxonMobile to shift the remaining greenhouse gas emissions off their reports and onto the company doing the bitcoin mining. A field advocate from environmental group Earthworks commented that the generators operated by one company doing APG-electric generation (Crusoe) "do appear to be more effective" than gas flaring. Several sources stress that even if releasing CO2 is better than more-potent APG into the atmosophere, this still results in harmful emissions and that monetizing previously unmonitized gas makes incentivizes more fossil fuel extraction. In places where flaring is prohibited (such as Colorado) this practice has allowed more oil drills to operate by offsetting costs.

Fresheneesz (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think now seems like a good point to add this back into the article. We can continue discussing issues with it and fix it in place. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your selection of this quote removed contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source, so yes, it was cherry-picking. See wikt:subsidy. A government subsidy is money granted by a government. a private subsidy is not. My point is merely that bitcoin miners are paying money, and/or paying for a secondary service, which allows oil drillers to drill more oil than they otherwise would legally be able to. This is neither complicated nor controversial.

Your proposed wording of "Mining bitcoin in this way has in many cases made it cost-effective and profitable to use APG electric generators that would have otherwise used gas flaring" is not correct. The generators would not otherwise use gas flaring, they are an alternative to gas flaring -that's the entire point. The redundant use of both "cost effective" and "profitable", as already mentioned, shifts the focus from a neutral explanation of the environmental impact to a context-free digression on bitcoin pseudo-economics. This article isn't the place for that.

When reliable sources repeatedly explain something, we should summarize that without editorializing about how or how many sources stress this. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit because you are removing important context and does not make anything "more neutral". Please discuss your objections here.

I've addressed your comments. I disagree that the use of "cost effective and profitable" changes the neutrality in any way. Its a fact, its not a judgement. However, I've made a compromise and have changed it to just say "profitable" because "cost-effective" alone doesn't get across that it making additional money and rather than implying something like that it's a cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gasses (which it is, but profitable covers both grounds).

And I object to you changing random words to suit your biases. Changing "often" to "sometimes" gives the impression that flaring is not done "often". Please don't add in weasel words to suit your biases. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained my objections. Based on your behavior towards me at other, unrelated articles, I don't think any explanation is going to satisfy you.

As should be obvious, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, nor for promoting fringe views on climate or economics. As sources explain, this is not simplistically a "cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". It is an added profit-incentive for drillers. In many cases, as already explained by sources, bitcoin mining incentivizes drillers to drill more and thus release more greenhouse gas emissions than they otherwise would. In other situations, it provides a cost-incentive for them to do slightly more than the bare minimum required by law. (Neither situation addresses the substantial methane released via orphan wells and fugitive gas emissions, either.) Presenting this as a reduction in greenhouse gasses without any context is simplistic.

As for being profitable (as separate from "cost-effective"), why would that matter here? We're not here to promote how "profitable" bitcoin mining can be, nor is it clear this is a factor.

Regarding what reliable sources stress: whether or not they emphasize these facts doesn't change that they are facts. Instead of editorializing about how common this position is (which is WP:WEASEL, by the way) we should just summarize what those sources say, which is what I attempted to do with my wording.

Claiming that "often" is somehow less biased than "sometimes" is pretty silly. They are both subjective, and the reason this matters in this context is that flaring and venting are not always done (even without bitcoin) and are not required parts of the drilling process. Since some people seem to think this type of bitcoin mining is "carbon negative", this point seems worth explaining. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Fresheneesz seems intent on promotion the position of Bitcoin miners on this issue, to the detriment of neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"It is an added profit-incentive for drillers."

YES. That's what I wrote! YOU removed the wording that says exactly that? So what in god's name are you talking about?

"bitcoin mining incentivizes drillers to drill more and thus release more greenhouse gas emissions than they otherwise would"

AGAIN, that is stated in the text in my edit. So what are you talking about?

"Presenting this as a reduction in greenhouse gasses without any context is simplistic."

This is exactly what all the sources say. You are editorializing by changing the content to fit your biases instead of what the sources say.

• this source says "The process reduces CO2-equivalent emissions by about 63% compared to continued flaring, according to research from Denver-based Crusoe Energy Systems."
• this source says "“flaring” .. is very bad for the environment... Bitcoin provides a climate-friendly alternative to flaring"
• this source says "Crusoe says its system—which reduces methane emissions by roughly 7 percentage points—reduces CO2-equivalent emissions by 63% compared to flaring"

This is well sourced information that you're removing.

"As for being profitable (as separate from "cost-effective"), why would that matter here?"

Are you really this dense? As you yourself have pointed out, bitcoin is not directly involved in the process of mining oil nor in the process of creating electricity. So how does it come in? Well it makes it profitable to create the electricity. That's why its important. Are you intentionally playing dumb here? I'm getting so tired of this BS.

"Instead of editorializing about how common this position is"

What do you think I'm editorializing about??? I DID summarize what the sources say.

""Claiming that "often" is somehow less biased than "sometimes" is pretty silly.""

So why did you change the word then? You seem to be messing with my edits as much as possible.

"Fresheneesz seems intent on promotion the position of Bitcoin miners on this issue, to the detriment of neutrality"

Absolutely ridiculous. Everything I wrote in here is well sourced and well balanced. I can see you both are so stuck in your bubble that you don't even see how your biases are warping your thinking. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, since the alternative is that you see your biases and you're actively biasing the article towards them instead of seeking neutrality.

"when you are in the minority, obtain consensus, and then edit.."

It is a complete misrepresentation to say that my edit was "in the minority". If you understood how consensus works on wikipedia, you'd know what Alalch simply reverting my edit does not add him to consensus. He gave no valid reason for the revert and thus he is not counted. Also, you gave no valid reason for the reversion, so YOU are also not part of consensus on this particular edit Andy.

To be perfectly honest, I'm tired of you fucking busy bodies wasting my time and harassing me. This bullshit is literally insane power plays. I'm tired of the wikilawyering. I'm going to request dispute resolution. You both are pissing me right off. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. Either my explanation was bad, or you failed to understand it, or you did understand it and are just looking for an excuse to insult me. Regardless, you demonstrably don't have consensus for your specific proposed wording. I will also note, for my own amusement more than anything, that all three of your sources for this being a simple reduction in greenhouse gases come from Crusoe Energy, a bitcoin mining company which is helping Exxon greenwash their emissions. As I said, this needs context. It doesn't need credulous PR sound-bites. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Methane burning being carbon negative

Let's discuss this reversion. @AndyTheGrump, it certainly is not a fringe concept that utilizing methane that would be otherwised offgassed is carbon negative. Many sources can be found for this. So what is your primary issue with this, not proper sourcing? Not proper wording? I did not make the claim that bitcoin will be carbon negative, because I don't think speculation is what this article is for. So why are you saying I'm making claims "from venture capitalists engaging in fundraising"? Fresheneesz (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

an opinion piece in Forbes, written by a freelance writer "exploring the bitcoin ecosystem. My work has been published by Bitcoin Magazine and Bitcoin News", quoting a venture capitalist seeking funding for a project utilising methane from landfill to mine Bitcoin is an entirely inappropriate source for claim regarding anything being 'carbon neutral or 'carbon negative', as should have been obvious. If you don't want to be reverted, find better sources before making edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbes' freelance garbage has come up so often it has its own shortcut: WP:FORBESCON. Neither of the other two other sources linked here are usable for this. One is just a recycled press release and the other is a "consultant report" submitted to a government website by Verdant Associates which never once mentions any cryptocurrency or blockchain-based scheme.

But the deeper problem has already been explained several times. Hunting around for sources specifically to dispute the mainstream assessment of this topic, and then presenting those as being of equal significance to more reliable, in-depth sources, is a fundamentally non-neutral approach. Additionally, this includes WP:EDITORIALIZING language based on these cherry-picked sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Per your request, I have made an adjustment to one of your specific edits. The use of "however" is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and attributing this to "the Harvard Business Review" in general misrepresents the authorship of the source. Further, the author of that article, a crypto investor named Nic Carter, is presenting conflicting information here. In one paragraph, he claims "The vast majority of Bitcoin’s energy consumption happens during the mining process. Once coins have been issued, the energy required to validate transactions is minimal."[3] While in a later paragraph he mentions that "Today, miners receive small fees for the transactions that they verify while mining (accounting for around 10% of miner revenue), as well as whatever profit margins they can get when they sell the bitcoins they have mined." The problem should be obvious: Carter is misrepresenting what "mining" means. Miners cannot opt-out of verifying transactions. They are verifying as a function of mining. This is the entire point of the blockchain. The two are treated the same by " journalists and academics" because, by design, they are functionally the same, which Carter is bending over backwards to avoid directly acknowledging.

So when this source is neutrally summarized and attributed, it no longer really adds a lot to the article, but its status as pro-crypto apologetic becomes crystal clear. This reflects the problem with many of these proposed changes, as already explained. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize certain Forbes articles aren't considered good sources. Fair enough.

I do not agree that the use of "However" is editorializing. The page on editorializing mentions that connecting words like that "may imply a relationship where none exists", but the fact of the matter is that the source directly mentions that "this metric" used by "many journalists" is misleading and the ones mentioned are exactly of the type he's talking about. So the use of "however" is indeed supported by the source.

You mentioned the author is presenting conflicting infomation, but the things you quote are not conflicting, but are in fact saying the same thing in two different ways. Mining is a for-profit thing and when X% of the profit comes from the creation of bitcoins and Y% comes from the fees attached to transactions, that's the split of how much mining work is done for each. This is what he means by both of the statements you quoted. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You are presenting this obscure bitcoin investor's biased and non-expert commentary as a rebuttal to multiple reliable sources. You, as an editor, are using a flimsy source to cast doubt on reliable sources. As has already been discussed, this is a form of false equivalence. The bitcoin investor's point is not valid in this context. The total amount of electricity used divided by the number of transaction explains how inefficient this system is and how much it uses per person. That it also generates more bitcoin is just compounding the problem, and trying to shift focus to how the money is divided-up is sophistry. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact the edit we're discussing having been removed was not contradicting or casting doubt on any other source. It simply asserts the obvious fact that burning methane that would otherwise be released is carbon-negative. Your comments mostly don't apply to the specific edit in question. However I already conceded that the source is not reliable. I have found a reliable source that can be used in its place:

• https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/07/study-bitcoin-could-achieve-zero-emissions-by-2024/

Fresheneesz (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Except it is not "carbon negative". At best, the energy generated for cryptocurrency mining converts slightly more methane to carbon dioxide than would be done by simple flaring, but this only applies to jurisdictions where flaring would be allowed. Further, as multiple sources already explain, these mines incentivizes oil drilling and also allow oil companies to green-wash their gas emissions by placing them into a different category without actually decreasing or addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Calling this "carbon negative" is just oil company PR. These sources have already explained this.

Jo Borrás, the author of the CleanTechnica article you've cited, is not listed as a journalist by that website. The article is an amateurish opinion article provided by their "Director of Business Development" who has no apparent relevant qualifications to talk on this complicated topic, and also doesn't apparently understand grade-school level basic science. That Director of Business Development credulously accepts claims from "CarbonCredits.com", a commercial carbon-offset company, as authoritative. He also attributes a claim to NADSAQ which originates from Bitcoin Magazine and is merely rehosted by NASDAQ.

Someone from that website who does have at least some relevant qualifications, and is listed by the site as a journalist, is Maximilian Holland, who wrote Why Bitcoin Truly Is Bad For The Climate & Environment, And Counter To Tesla’s Mission. Citing the weakest source from a weak outlet to support a contentious point is cherry-picking. As has already been explained, this is the problem with your edits to this article. If you go around hunting for any source to support a fringe perspective, you likely will find it, but this remains completely unpersuasive. We are looking for reliable sources, not cherry-picked fringe apologetic. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a big huge difference between the obvious immediate effects of burning methane more completely vs the speculative secondary effects you're talking about. Regardless, if they meet wikipedia's standards, feel free to add those qualifications into the article. Your opinion about what is or is not "just oil company PR" is, frankly, completely irrelevant to this conversation.

"Jo Borrás.. is not listed as a journalist by that website"

He's listed as the author on the article published by that website, I don't know what canonical list the author must be part of in your mind in order for his writing to be deemed valid. And your opinion about what is "amateurish" is also completely irrelevant. Journalists are not required to have special "relevant qualifications" to report on "complicated topics". You are making up BS to support your position and its absurdly transparent. You can track down all kinds of errors or dubious looking things you want, but the question is not "is the article believable to Greyfell", the question is: "is cleantechnica a relialbe source". If it is, we can use it, if its not, we don't. That's how this works. The articles don't have to "persuade" you personally.

And why are you bringing up that article by Maximilian Holland? As far as I can tell, it has no releavance whatsoever to off-grid methaned powered bitcoin mining.

The bottom line is: is cleantechnica a reliable source or not? Are you claiming its not? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not an author is qualified to speak on a topic is part of how a sources' reliability is decided. Journalists are not required to be specialists, but they are required to be journalists. We do not treat opinion content in the same way we treat factual reporting by vetted journalists. This borderline source itself cites obviously unreliable sources to support a point (a corporate blog and a pro-bitcoin public relations piece), and that point involves WP:FRINGE pseudoscience about climate change. That point is also contradicted by many other more reliable and more mainstream sources. Therefor, that source should be treated as less reliable.

Your declaration that this is a reliable doesn't make it a reliable source, nor does it grant you consensus to restore contested content. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While considering an author's potential conflicts of interest and specialities are of course reasonable to consider when determining how reliable a source by that author is, I will repeat, a journalist need not be an expert in the subject they're reporting on in order to reliably report on it. CleanTechnica has a high rating for reliability and fact checking. You asserted that Jo Borras is not listed as an author of CleanTechnia. You're wrong. You're talking about opinion pieces. Its not one. You seem to be claiming that citing something posted on a corporate blog disqualifies the entire article. It doesn't. You claim it contradicts other more reliable sources, but you don't say what contradictions or what sources. You say the source should be treated as "less" reliable, but you aren't providing an alternative source that's more reliable for this piece of information.

You are not the gatekeeper of this article Grayfell. None of the arguments you've listed off add up to a valid reason to revert this edit. Neither have you provided an alternative suggestion as to how to move forward with this information. Instead of spending time helping me create an edit we can both be happy with, you're simply blockading the content. That is not acceptable. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, per prior discussions (Wikipedia:MBFC), Media Bias/Fact Check is very poor quality. It's just a blog with subjective and opaque opinions presented as facts.

I did not say he wasn't listed as "an author" I said he wasn't listed as a journalist. His bio is repeated on their Our Team page, where he is listed not under "journalist" but under "Director of Business Development". His bio says nothing at all about any relevant qualifications, either as an expert or as a journalist. Their Advertise page includes a listing of "Native content" services, and the first example is an article written by Borrás without obvious disclosure.

As I've already mentioned, that specific article cites and misrepresents multiple unreliable sources for its position (such a "study" posted to a blog called "Batcoinz", etc.). Maybe this article is SEO, maybe it's shilling, or maybe it's just lazy content. Regardless, the opinion of motorsports enthusiast Jo Borrás is unlikely to be relevant to this article, especially when weighed against other, more reliable sources already discussed. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally all of your objections are bogus. It doesn't matter what this guy is "listed as". Sources are allowed to use blog posts as a reference. In fact, its literally the whole point of journalism to take sources that on their own wouldn't be as reliable and then fact check them so the information is more trustworthy. Your conjectures about what might be shilling or lazy are irrelevant and a waste of all of our time. Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinions Grayfell. So unless you have better reasons that this usually-reliable source isn't in fact reliable in this case beyond straight irrelevant BS, I'm going to ignore your opinion as intentional obstruction. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Of the two of us, which is more guilty of "aggressive antagonism"? Whether you agree with my reasoning or not, you will still have to follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Energy per transaction

And let's discuss this edit. You removed the bit about reporting on energy usage per transaction being misleading. I can find several other reliable looking sources with similar assertions:

• https://cei.org/blog/six-myths-about-cryptocurrency-energy-use/
• https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/is-bitcoins-energy-consumption-problem-actually-a-solution-green-china-canada-hydro-renewable/

I would like to reinstate the content with additional sourcing, and perhaps slightly different wording to incorporate the aggregate characterization among these sources. What do you think? Fresheneesz (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't waste people's time with blogs and providers of "paid-content" [4] features. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a self-goal that you attempted to cite Competitive Enterprise Institute, a dark-money climate-change denialist advocacy group for this point. The other sources appear equally bad or cherry-picked. Until you address this false equivalence and cherry-picking problem, as Andy says, this is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep your personal attacks to yourself Grayfell. Don't assert that you know what my goals are. And how do you determine what sources are reliable or not? I can find this page that says cei has a low score on factual reporting. But the businessofbusiness.com article is written by Iulia Ciutina who seems like a legitimate writer, and not paid content. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your goals? Your goals are obvious, but if you mean my use of the term "self-goal", that's another term for wikt:own goal. The gist is that CEI is a very bad source. Per prior discussions (Wikipedia:MBFC), Media Bias/Fact Check is very poor quality, so the source will have to be bad on its own lack of merits.

You are experienced enough to know how WP:RS are determined.

As for the BusinessOfBusiness source, it doesn't even pretend to be an impartial news outlet. It's also a zombie website as it hasn't updated in over a year, with no explanation. (Credit where due, it has issued a handful corrections). That specific source appears dubious for a few additional reasons but the important part for this discussion is that it doesn't dispute these claims of energy use per transaction. Instead it attempts to muddy the discussion by introducing a tangent about the difference between transactions and difficulty. The majority of the article is a very superficial misrepresentation of what curtailment (electricity) is. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing about this is a "personal attack". This page is the place to discuss the problems with these proposed edits. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Energy consumption inconsistency

The article lede cites the 2023 CBECI revision, while the source cited in the paragraph about mining as an energy-intensive process cites the numbers from 2022. Wouldn't it make more sense to cite the 2023 revision and numbers in both places? 2003:CD:EF1C:6400:D560:A41F:3792:AE7F (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"In the Know"

"In The Know by Yahoo" is not "Yahoo! News" @Gjb0zWxOb. It is "a digital network dedicated to innovation, style, and improving the lives of the next generation of changemakers.". Not RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, the author of that specific article is Donnavan Smoot, who is described by that site as "an SEO/Trending Writer & Editor for In the Know by Yahoo. He is a Houston-based Texas native that was an editor at BetSided prior to In The Know." That the site itself present "SEO" as the defining purpose of this content is damning. Prior experience at a gambling site is not a demonstration of topic expertise. The claims that bitcoin mining is "energy-neutral" fails common sense, also. This bathouse is patting itself on the back for finding a convoluted (and expensive) way to get other people to pay for their electricity bills. Even the cited article itself includes skepticism to this project, and WP:NPOV doesn't mean we have to pretend to be gullible. Extraordinary claims require good sources, but this is not a good source. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to ping me should you have any questions. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9, I think the changes required to meet 3a will be substantial, so before I continue with the remainder of the review, please have a look and make modifications. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ganesha811, thanks again for conducting this review. Regarding 3a, here are my first thoughts:

• 'Regulatory responses': I don't think that there are other regulations regarding the environmental effects of bitcoin elsewhere, do you have any RS by any chance?
• Cryptocurrency e-waste only cites de Vries, which is already cited here. I don't see any reason to expand this section which may actually be already way too long (WP:DUE).
• The report is already cited (note 24). (And it's a primary source, so not great.)
• I can add one sentence about the position of the industry before the scientific literature that mentions bitcoin's potential climate benefits. (=> done)
• "comparison to other cryptocurrencies": it's already mentioned that A transition to the proof-of-stake protocol, which has better energy efficiency, has been described as a sustainable alternative to bitcoin's proof-of-work scheme and as a potential solution to its environmental issues. What else could be said?
• The January review paper is already cited.
• This paper: not sure it's RS: the journal Procedia is marred with controversy and the authors are from the "School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing"...
• NYT article: do you have access to it by any chance?

What do you think?

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A few comments:

• A few sources talk about China's environmental motivation behind banning mining in 2021. Canadian provinces too. The failed EU regulation effort from 2022 may also be worth a mention. The sources are there, just may take some digging to unearth them.
• Re: de Vries - editorial judgement may differ, so no worries.
• I'm not sure I'd call the report a primary source myself, but good to see it's used at least once - seems valuable as an overview.
• Re: other cryptocurrencies - more specifics, whether Bitcoin is actually being mined less due to environmental concerns (if sources are available)
• Re: January - great!
• Re: Procedia - fair enough, thanks for due diligence.
• Try this link for the NYtimes.
• Any thoughts on water use?

—Ganesha811 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Thanks. I'll have a look tmr morning. Regarding water I thought I answered sorry: there's only one non peer reviewed commentary by de Vries published last month in Cell. I'll add it somewhere (not sure where though 🤔). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I added Canada and the EU. I'll dig more for China as miners are back in China today, so mining is somehow tolerated.

"other cryptocurrencies": I could not find sources claiming that "Bitcoin is actually being mined less due to environmental concerns". File:Bitcoin electricity consumption.svg actually shows an increase in mining, so I don't think there's any switch to other cryptocurrencies.

I added water use.

I'll read the NYT article and see if I can add stuff.

Regarding 1a:

• "As of 2021, according to The New York Times, bitcoin's use of renewables ranged from 40% to 75%." => I'm afraid we don't have anything better than this (I researched a lot and the only other RS I found was Bloomberg Intelligence). I understand that it is "the share of all electricity used by bitcoin mining that comes from renewables" (at least the lower bound of 40%?). "the share of bitcoin mining operations that use some renewables in their electricity mix" would be close to 100% as there's now a bit of renewables every where.
• "35 cents": it was not super clear to me either, I read the paper again and modified the text. I now understand better the concept and I hope that it's clearer. It's basically the climate cost (in $ instead of Co2) of each mined bitcoin (in $ instead of BTC).

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the 2021 40-75% NYTimes stat should be removed - it's such a wide range, that without being able to pin it down to a specific study whose reliability we can assess, it's just not very helpful to the reader. It's also a couple years out of date at this point in any case. Other than that, all looking good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I checked the NYT article (thanks again for sharing) and I added it twice: about PoW vs PoS and about the renewable % (54% fossil fuel in the US). I don't think there's more information there that needs to be added as it mainly focuses on the lack of benefits of mining in terms of jobs and the costs for the community in terms of energy + tax subsidies. (And I prefer in general high quality academic journals than newspapers.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just added one line about the environmental concerns behind China's crackdown. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Bear in mind the caution in 5. below re: stability. Congrats to A455bcd9 and anyone else who worked on the article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"As of 2021, according to The New York Times, bitcoin's use of renewables ranged from 40% to 75%." - what exactly does this mean? It's not very clear in the source either. Is this the share of all electricity used by bitcoin mining that comes from renewables? Or the share of bitcoin mining operations that use some renewables in their electricity mix? Or something else? Let's see if we can track down a better source and more specific description for these estimates. Addressed. A little more explanation of the Scientific Reports "35 cents" study would be helpful to the reader. Addressed. As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time - let me know if there are any changes you object to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are promisingly high quality. Seeing lots of reliable academia, some high-quality journalistic sources, and a few think-thank NGO pieces. The vast reams of unreliable blogposts on this topic are excluded. Pass. I'm suspecting the main thing to be sure of during this review will be that it is both up to date, and comprehensive. One issue of note: the Galaxy Digital study. While it was mentioned in a reliable source, that reliable source made no claims as to its validity, but just used it as an example of an argument made by crypto advocates. The full Galaxy Digital report is available here. Do we have any reason to believe it is actually an accurate or useful comparison? The qualms noted by Agur et al. seem valid. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) It's only because it is cited by RS that I found it noteworthy. I think we have the same situation with the WattTime report cited by the NYT. I don't understand what you mean by The qualms noted by Agur et al. seem valid. Agur et al. actually cite the report as a reliable source to confirm that indeed they focused on payments only and that they underestimate the whole banking sector's footprint. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Their full mention of the GD report: For bank transfers, we are not aware of any estimates on their energy consumption. Rybarczyk et al. (2021) provide an estimate for the energy consumption of the entire global banking sector. However, payments are only one of the many different services that banks perform and are not separately estimated. This is a commentary on the limitations of the GD report, not an endorsement of their result. It's saying that the GD report cannot be used to estimate the energy consumption of the traditional banking payment system, since it covers all energy use by banks. I don't think two passing mentions like this in reliable sources means that the GD report should be included, especially as the first sentence we have treats their claim as meaningful: One 2021 study by cryptocurrency investment firm Galaxy Digital claimed that bitcoin mining used less than half the energy of the banking system. I would recommend removing the sentences focused on the GD report, or combining them into one sentence that notes its limitations clearly. Another sentence about the IMF study could be added instead. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) That's not how I understand the sentence. For me it's about the limitations of their own report, not about GD's limitations. GD is the only report for the energy consumption of the entire global banking sector, while their is for payments only. Did I misunderstand something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) The point being, what value in this article is an estimate of energy consumption of the entire global banking sector? Bitcoin currently and even theoretically does not provide the same services as the entire global banking sector. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) But Bitcoin also offers more services/features than payment systems. So it's somewhat between "payment systems" and "global banking sector". But this is OR, so I'll remove the GD report. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Great! I pulled a couple more sentences that no longer added much value without the GD report. Issue addressed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR found, all sections cited. No obvious synthesis, but will be checking closely again during prose review.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot check. Nothing found by manual spot check of 5 sources I could access. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	'Regulatory responses' focuses exclusively on the US, but there have been plenty of regulations dealing with environmental effects of bitcoin elsewhere, either proposed or adopted. Please rework this section to make sure it presents a global view of the subject. The article on Cryptocurrency e-waste has some good additional detail that could be incorporated here. Another paragraph (well cited) wouldn't hurt the section. This federal report should likely be mentioned in terms of regulatory and governmental responses in the US. This article should probably make mention of the fact that Bitcoin advocates frequently argue that Bitcoin's environmental effects are minimal or can be minimized - one example. Per the scientific literature, this is definitely a minority view among researchers, but the industry's general stance of "denial" is worth a sentence or two, as is the comparison to other cryptocurrencies, some of which are explicitly designed with minimization of energy requirements in mind. This review paper has good material that is up to date as of January. Please read through and incorporate - could be useful for high level summary. This study may have useful material for the comparison to fiat currency section. Not all parts of it focus on environmental impacts directly, but this in-depth NYTimes article has useful material for the electricity demand section. Bitcoin mining's use of water has gathered some attention - this should be mentioned in the article. Issues above all addressed, discussed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of considerable overdetail, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After modifications, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is trickier than many GA reviews, given the topic. There have been a number of recent disputes on the talk page and the article continues to evolve, with sources changing in the last few weeks. However, the issues do appear to have been resolved for now and there are no outstanding valid tags on the article. It is also currently protected. This one is close, but I'd say it is stable enough to pass GA. However, interested editors will have to be diligent (if it does pass review) about making sure that it is maintained at a GA standard, while avoiding WP:OWN behavior. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The public domain chart rationale is interesting - hadn't heard of that one. Appears to be completely valid. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well illustrated, no issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by increasing the profitability of wind and solar farms?
  • Sources:

    • Lal, Apoorv; Zhu, Jesse; You, Fengqi (November 2023). "From Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action". ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 11 (45): 16330–16340. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445. ISSN 2168-0485. S2CID 264574360. (highly reputable author and journal, the title says it all, it's also explained in layman's terms in this related news article)
    • Bruno, August; Weber, Paige; Yates, Andrew J. (August 2023). "Can Bitcoin mining increase renewable electricity capacity?". Resource and Energy Economics. 74: 101376. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2023.101376. ISSN 0928-7655.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Capitol Hill mystery soda machine
• Comment: I think this is my second DYK nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by A455bcd9 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental effects of bitcoin; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Not a review: "was estimated to... represent 0.4% of global electricity consumption (!)" That's way more than I expected. I think the article is ripe for a lot of punchy hooks. Bremps... 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this nomination! The article was surely very interesting and so is the hook. I've found no issues. This is my first time reviewing DYK, so I've marked this for a second look just to be sure. Regards, NotAGenious (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

NotAGenious, thanks for taking the time to review this nomination! I'm available should you or the second reviewer have any question :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a very misleading hook, given that bitcoin mining is in fact causing 0.2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions all by itself. A more appropriate hook would be something along the lines of:

• ALT1: ... that bitcoin mining represents an estimated 0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the level of emissions of Greece?

The article is not nearly so optimistic, hypothetically, as the original hook is; it seems more representative to give the actual contribution in terms of greenhouse gases. Pinging nominator A455bcd9 for their thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, hi

1. The hook is not "very misleading". It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic, just an interesting fact, well-sourced, that triggers the interest of readers and incites them to read the rest of the article. Basically, a hook. By the way, published this week in the Journal of Cleaner Production: Can bitcoin mining empower energy transition and fuel sustainable development goals in the US?: Therefore, integrating bitcoin mining with planned renewable installations offers a dual solution of bolstering investments in the renewable energy sector while addressing climate concerns associated with conventional mining operations.
2. Per Talk:Bitcoin#Polling, the 0.2% GHG estimate comes from a single non-peer-reviewed commentary that might not even be RS, so your proposed hook is not acceptable. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• a455bcd9 (Antoine), I had assumed that, being a Good Article, the sources in it were reliable and the facts established. Given how much play the 0.2% number is given in the nominated article, you can understand why I proposed the hook I did. Perhaps this nomination should be delayed, since if the source is ultimately deemed unreliable major surgery will be needed to the article to keep it at GA level. Regarding the hook, it still feels misleading to me, since the current environmental effects of bitcoin—the reason for the article existing—are clearly deleterious and a contribution to greenhouse gases and thus global warming; "could support" is what rang alarm bells for me: it read like a "see, this isn't so bad after all since this thing might help". BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKINT: "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." This is exactly what this hook is doing. it read like a "see, this isn't so bad after all since this thing might help": actually, this is the opinion from the recent peer-reviewed articles on the subject published in high-quality engineering or environmental academic journals (the best of the field actually: ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, Resource and Energy Economics, and Journal of Cleaner Production). These papers led some to wonder whether Bitcoin could be an ESG investment during the COP28. All these points are already covered in the article. The authors of the source mentioning the 0.2% GHG estimate are actually about to publish a new paper (peer-review in progress) looking at the "climate benefits" of Bitcoin. Anyway, yes, the sources are reliable and the facts established that "bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by increasing the profitability of wind and solar farms". So I don't see what's the problem with the hook.

Regarding the 0.2% estimate: I think I added it to Environmental effects of bitcoin. A debate about this source started after the GA review and after this DYK application. As I said there (Talk:Bitcoin#Polling): 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'm waiting for the community to reach a conclusion before changing the lead in "Environmental effects of bitcoin", but most likely we would mention that this estimate is not peer-reviewed (and a recent review even considers it non-rigorous, I'll add this to the article). How we present this source and whether or not we mention it in the lead does not affect the GA status. But per WP:DYKHOOKCITE, we shouldn't use a weakly sourced fact as a hook. Even though that weakly sourced fact might appear in the article, as it would then be presented as such with some caveats. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 and BlueMoonset: are these issues resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with A455bcd9.—Alalch E. 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I came across this at Leek's talk page. Copying my comment from there:

Oof. If Wikipedia's core purpose is to inform readers, then using a hook that gives an impression counter to the general thrust of an article hinders that purpose. I also agree that the use of "could" in the hook is part of the issue, given that we're talking about a purely hypothetical policy proposal. My view is that it would be irresponsible of us to run that hook given the lack of context, just as it would be irresponsible to run a negative BLP hook.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sdkb, how is this "counter to the general thrust of [the] article"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The general thrust of the article is that bitcoin mining has significant negative environmental impact. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the article? There's a reason why bitcoin mining benefits from tax breaks in 7 US states while being banned nowhere, e.g. The program could help Texas cut releases of stranded gas, a major source of CO2 emissions, methane, and pollutants resulting from burning gas. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's see, in that same section about tax breaks from those states, the article talks about New York banning new fossil fuel mining plants for two years, an in-progress 18-month ban for new crypto hookups in two Canadian provinces, and the EU urging member states to end tax breaks for crypto mining. The current environmental effects of bitcoin mining are clearly deleterious in a number of ways, as laid out in the article, and while there are any number of very interesting hooks that could be made from the article on those aspects, you've chosen one—and won't budge on it—that says it "could" support renewable energy development (even while, presumably, continuing to contribute significantly to climate change through heightened fossil fuel consumption and resulting pollution). Is the "0.4% of global electricity consumption" statement still true, or is that as suspect as the "0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions" information? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about US states so by "banned nowhere" I implied "in the US". Indeed, the NYS 2y moratorium is only about new fossil fuel mining plants and new (renewable) bitcoin mines have opened since the moratorium. (I of course know the EU and Canadian measures as I added them to the article, although they were not based on environmental ground per se but on availability of resources, see for instance the recent Canadian ruling: "The court ruling emphasized that BC Hydro's ban was grounded on a cost-of-service basis, addressing the substantial energy demands associated with cryptocurrency mining, Coindesk reported. The ban aims to maintain affordable energy access for the wider population and prevent excessive strain on the power grid.") The 0.4% also comes from a non-peer-reviewed source, although I'd say of higher quality (Cambridge University) than the 0.2% one. Again, I added both estimates to the article, as I initially trusted them, but the ongoing debate in Talk:Bitcoin#Polling made me re-assess my position. (Same for the water footprint estimate btw, also a non-peer-reviewed commentary authored by the same data scientist at the Dutch central bank.) On the other hand, facing these isolated non-peer-reviewed commentaries/blog posts we have several recent high-quality peer-reviewed reliable sources by leading scholars (such as Fengqi You, h-index of 81!) in the most prestigious academic journals of this field:

• Velický, Matěj (27 February 2023). "Renewable Energy Transition Facilitated by Bitcoin". ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 11 (8): 3160–3169. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c06077. ISSN 2168-0485. S2CID 256788823.
• Bruno, August; Weber, Paige; Yates, Andrew J. (August 2023). "Can Bitcoin mining increase renewable electricity capacity?". Resource and Energy Economics. 74: 101376. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2023.101376. hdl:10419/266008. ISSN 0928-7655.
• Lal, Apoorv; Zhu, Jesse; You, Fengqi (2023-11-13). "From Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action". ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 11 (45): 16330–16340. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445. ISSN 2168-0485. S2CID 264574360. Archived from the original on 23 November 2023. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
• Lal, Apoorv; Niaz, Haider; Liu, J. Jay; You, Fengqi (2024-02-01). "Can bitcoin mining empower energy transition and fuel sustainable development goals in the US?". Journal of Cleaner Production. 439: 140799. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140799. S2CID 267084404.

(On a slightly different point, we also have the World Bank report on flaring mitigation using Bitcoin mining.)

That's why I chose this hook as I thought and still think that 1/ it was backed by the strongest possible reliable sources and 2/ it would "be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest" and "leave the reader wanting to know more" per WP:DYKINT.

Regarding the wording, I used the one from this Cornell University news report: Bitcoin could support renewable energy development (that I linked in my initial message above).

So yes, high-quality reliable sources say, literally, that it "could" support renewable energy development. You then added even while, presumably, continuing to contribute significantly to climate change through heightened fossil fuel consumption and resulting pollution but that's not what these RS say. RS tell us that "When Bitcoin miners provide grid management services in the form of demand response, their emissions impact is largely mitigated" and that bitcoin mining "can lead to combined positive effects on climate change mitigation". (Besides, RS estimate that renewables represent about half of bitcoin mining sources, whereas renewables represent about 1/7 = 14% of the global energy mix so by this account bitcoin mining might be the industry the lowest reliance on fossil fuels in the world.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose a hook based on something an editor found interesting above. It is sourced to here: [5].

• ALT1: ... that bitcoin mining represents 0.4% of global electricity consumption, ranking bitcoin mining between Belgium and the Netherlands in terms of electricity consumption?

Feel free to use or disregard, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rjjiii, as I wrote yesterday, this is a non-peer-reviewed blog post published in the "Insight" section of the Cambridge Judge Business School ("Welcome to Cambridge Judge Business School’s insights, a hub of articles showcasing business thought leadership and expert opinion from our community."). It's better than nothing, but it's definitely not better than several high-quality peer-reviewed reliable sources published by some of the most famous scholars in the world in the most reputable academic journals in this field. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Also, regarding the article overall, if there are concerns about the quality of that particular source, its figures have been cited by several publications that should meet WP:RS: [6][7]. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii, I don't think this is how WP:BLOGS work. To say it simply, if a shitty source is cited by reliable sources, this does not suddenly make the shitty source reliable. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 In this case I think the author clearly is a subject matter expert and the blog should be considered reliable per policy at WP:SELFPUBLISHED which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The bio of Alexander Neumülle at the bottom of this JSTOR article published by MIT clearly indicates Neumulle is a subject matter expert. Further in looking at the article, the author cites the statistics to United States government collected data with url links and then does a very basic readily viable analysis of that data that is readily viewable to everyone. I don't think there is anything controversial about some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data on global energy consumption. In other words, the blog is accurate on this point in the hook fact. In my opinion this hook should be approved and promoted.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi 4meter4, I'm not sure to understand your point:

1/ This new JSTOR-hosted article you're pointing to is also not yet peer-reviewed. I emailed the authors and they told me that the peer-review was in progress and it should be published soon. Anyway this updated study by Alexander Neumüller indeed presents the "Climate benefits of Bitcoin mining".

2/ the author cites the statistics to United States government collected data and then does a very basic readily viable analysis of that data: which paper are you talking about? There's no US gov data on bitcoin mining around the world. That's the whole point, we don't know the energy consumption of bitcoin mining, nor do we know its emissions.

3/ I don't think there is anything controversial about some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data on global energy consumption.: looks like WP:OR to me, but again, the sources we're talking about here don't do "some basic math" on "publicly available data", they make a lot of assumptions and look at detailed network and energy data country by country. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point A455bcd9, which is the bio of the author. I would think a person with a research post doing research in the relevant field at Cambridge University is reasonably considered a subject matter expert. The author is also cited as a subject matter expert by CCN and the article in question is already being cited by other writers in the relevant field. We generally accept content in BLOGS written by subject matter experts as a matter of policy.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that everything you said about the post only being "some basic math that anyone could do to analyze publicly available data" was totally wrong? (and yes, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED this blog post may be considered RS, but is it strong enough to be on the homepage vs several proper peer-reviewed articles?) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

4meter4: lol, what a joke, you mentioned CCN, I read too quickly and thought it was CNN but it's just another bullshit crypto website. CCN.com, owned and operated by Find.co, is a site focused on cryptocurrencies, business, finance and technology. Not RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CCN. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument with you on data analysis. That is WP:OR on your part and is irrelevant. The blog in question is a Cambridge University blog with a target audience of academic researchers. The blog is written by a subject matter expert in a research post in the field at a major research university. The arguments being made here are not in keeping with the spirit of the policy language at WP:SELFPUBLISHED as it relates to subject matter experts. I further note that your attitude here is entirely WP:UNCIVIL and your choice of language is offensive. Swearing at people is not acceptable behavior in a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on your conclusion but swearing at people? Where did I swear? Because I said "lol, what a joke"? The joke was unfortunately on me as I read CNN instead of CCN and then realized the mistake! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• You've sworn twice in your comments above. I don't like that language. Find other words or don't be a reviewer. That kind of language isn't ok. It's overly hostile and can easily be misinterpreted as a personal attack even if it is being used as descriptor of your thoughts on a particular topic. It comes off as derisive towards people with different viewpoints and doesn't help when trying to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. It's intentionally rude.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand where I swore, but I guess as a non-native speaker, Pardon my French... Joking aside, I did not intend to attack you personally and I'll be more careful in the future, you're right, thanks for politely reminding me to do so. (Find other words or don't be a reviewer: I'm the nominator btw.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In general the use of toilet words like "shit" and its various forms "shitty", "bullshit". etc. is rude to English language speakers. People use these words when they are hostile/angry and they are generally intended to communicate contempt.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Again, this word was used to address the (lack of) quality of the source (per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CCN: "sources that are so bad that they can't be trusted for anything"), but I understand that using it changed the tone of the debate and I apologize for my poor choice of word.

Anyway, coming back to the debate, as you noted, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Here, the author is Alexander Neumueller and I cannot find a single previous peer-reviewed paper that he authored on Google Scholar. Whether on Bitcoin, climate, or anything else. It looks like he recently joined academia and/or did not produce any reliable work. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I can agree it is borderline. I'm still leaning on the its ok side given its a major research university's blog with an intended academic audience and the MIT article is likely to be published soon with a peer review. I put in a note for others to comment; so hopefully we can get some other opinions in order to arrive at a majority consensus. Have a good day.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm commenting because of the request at WT:DYK.

1. The original hook suggestion is not acceptable because DYK hooks should be definite facts and the proposition is not definite; it's a maybe.
2. ALT1 is not acceptable as it stands because it doesn't give a year or timeframe for the statistic. As I understand it, bitcoin mining tends to be quite variable as it depends on the market price of bitcoin and energy, which are both quite volatile.
3. The topic reminds me of one which I complained about at WP:ERRORS and that was pulled.
4. As this is a contentious topic, we should err on the side of caution. As it's had plenty of consideration, the obvious conclusion is .

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't understand why everyone is arguing over one or two hooks. If there's ever an issue, best practice is to come up with more hooks and to move on. I don't get what is happening here. To everyone: find a new hook and move on; this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas We can't promote articles with verifiability issues anywhere; not just in the hooks but in the body of the article as well. There was a difference of opinion over whether or not the source used should be considered reliable. Now that we have a more input from other people, WP:CONSENSUS opinion is that the source in question is unreliable. That would mean the nominator would need to substantially re-write the article and remove all content cited to that source before the article could be approved even if a verifiable hook were found. On top of this, the nominator was informed about the hook problem more than two weeks ago but failed to provide a new workable hook suggestion, and the nomination itself is now two months old. Plenty of time has been given already to fix problems, and with now a stronger consensus opinion against the WP:Verifiability of the article's current text it is time to reject the hook.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• In view of this second opinion, and given the length of time since the nomination was made; I am ticking this hook as rejected. We can't wait forever for a new hook to be proposed and approved, and the concerns being raised here would require some additional trimming and re-writing of material from the article itself in order to be policy compliant. If the general consensus is this hook content isn't acceptable for the main page; then it isn't acceptable for the article either and should be tagged as unreliable. This has now timed out for DYK purposes. 4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)