Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin/GA1

GA Review
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 and anyone else who worked on the article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)