Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|y|

}}

• "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)

{{GATable/item|1b|y|

}}

• Pass, no issues.

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|y|

}}

• No uncited passages.

{{GATable/item|2b|y|

}}

• 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 [https://www.lopp.net/pdf/On_Bitcoin_Energy_Consumption.pdf 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 {{tq|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: {{tq|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: {{tq|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.

{{GATable/item|2c|y|

}}

• No OR found, all sections cited. No obvious synthesis, but will be checking closely again during prose review.

{{GATable/item|2d|y|

}}

• Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot check.
• Nothing found by manual spot check of 5 sources I could access. Pass.

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|y|

}}

• '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.
• [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf This federal report] should likely be mentioned in terms of regulatory and [https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact-sheet-climate-and-energy-implications-of-crypto-assets-in-the-united-states/ 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 - [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/technology/bitcoin-miners-environment-crypto.html 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.
• [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030147972202103X 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.
• [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221282712300094X 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 [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html 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)

{{GATable/item|3b|y|

}}

• No areas of considerable overdetail, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review.

{{GATable/item|4|y|

}}

• After modifications, pass.

{{GATable/item|5|y|

}}

• 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)

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|y|

}}

• The public domain chart rationale is interesting - hadn't heard of that one. Appears to be completely valid. Pass.

{{GATable/item|6b|y|

}}

• Well illustrated, no issues here.

{{GATable/item|7|y|

}}