# Talk:Environmental impact of bitcoin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
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)


### 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)

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 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)

 This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BanksBadge (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by BanksBadge (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Thinking about making my first major edit on a Wikipedia article, and was wondering what y'all thought about my change to the noise pollution section.
Bitcoin mining facilities can generate a significant amount of noise pollution for the surrounding area. Most prominently are cooling fans and ventilation systems that run 24/7 to ensure the rigs do not overheat. Minor causes include the electric hums and vibration of ASIC miners and GPUs. While locals report negative health impacts, no major study has been conducted on the health effects of living near a facility..

https://time.com/6982015/bitcoin-mining-texas-health/
https://coinledger.io/learn/why-is-crypto-mining-noisy
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bitcoin-noise-arkansas-right-to-mine-bill/
BanksBadge (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There's already a "Noise pollution" section that does not need much improvements based on the sources you provided. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
What do you recommend I change? BanksBadge (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing. There's nothing to do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh okay sorry BanksBadge (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

With respect to this quote:

In a 2023 study published in Ecological Economics, researchers from the International Monetary Fund estimated that the global payment system represented about 0.2% of global electricity consumption, comparable to the consumption of Portugal or Bangladesh.
I feel like this quote is misleading. This figure covers the whole global payment system, including cash handling and ATMs, but it is compared to Bitcoin’s digital network only. That seems like an uneven comparison between a physical + digital system and a digital-only one.
Would it make more sense to just compare digital payment systems (like card networks and electronic transfers) with cryptocurrencies? Sibshops (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

1. This would be original research. We follow what the authors said for what they call "the Current Payment System".
2. In any case, they estimate "Digital Payment System Based on Credit and Debit Cards" to 39 TWh and cash handling and ATMs to 8.3 TWh, giving a 47.3 TWh total. So even if we were to follow your suggestion it would still be about 0.2% of global electricity consumption. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
1. That's fair, the comparison is made by the cited IMF authors, so it makes sense to represent what they said.
2. I guess to be completely fair one would have to compare the current credit-based system to a credit-based system backed with cryptocurrencies. It seems misleading of the authors to make the comparsion at all, if it can't function as a drop-in replacement. But this is out-of-scope for wikipedia and is OR.
Thanks for the clarification, no changes requested. Sibshops (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Should the quote about the fossil fuel/renewable fuels breakdown be removed? 

as 47.6% of the electricity used in 2025 was generated through fossil fuels while 52.4% was generated through sustainable energy sources.
It's a self-published industry report WP:SPS with no editorial oversight.
The data comes from miner's self-reported energy sources without any independent measurement. It's miners reporting data about themselves. WP:ABOUTSELF
It's not a research study nor is it done by an independent third-party WP:PRIMARY
The report doesn't say this is the actual energy breakdown, it says this is what miners reported the energy breakdown to be. The line in the wikipage is implying that this is the energy breakdown but that wasn't stated in the source. WP:SYNTH
From the report:

Drawing on survey data from 49 digital mining firms Sibshops (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The source is RS. It is in line with other RS cited in the article such as Bloomberg and NYT (via WattTime). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hm.. the bloomberg one seems to be a made up source. I can't find any evidence for it.
In 2023, Jamie Coutts, a crypto analyst writing for Bloomberg Terminal said that renewables represented about half of global bitcoin mining sources, Sibshops (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Even assuming the self-published industry report is RS, wouldn't it still count as OR or SYNTH if the report is being interpreted as fact when the report itself is saying it's an industry survey of miners? Sibshops (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess at a minimum, I removed it from the header. It's undue weight to give the industry report more weight than other reports, studies, or estimates. Sibshops (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@A455bcd9, I qualified the study in the main page. Let me know if it's okay. Sibshops (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The Bloomberg Terminal article is not "a made up source". Being behind paywall does not make a source "made up". Bloomberg is RS.
The Cambridge data is RS and is the latest we have, it should appear in the lead. The other paper looked at 2022 data, no reason to put it forward.
For what it's worth, the industry published a rebuttal of that 2025 paper: https://www.da-ri.org/rebuttal/rebuttal-dominici-et-al-2025 I'm not an expert but I understand that the main rebuttal point is the use of marginal power: https://www.electricitymaps.com/content/from-power-markets-to-reality-does-the-marginal-power-plant-really-exist
The very weird thing to me is that Nat Steinsultz and Henry Richardson from WattTime and Gabriel Dance from the NYT are coauthors of the 2025 paper (looking at 2022–2023) and yet Gabriel Dance's 2023 NYT article citing WattTime ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html ) gives a different number for the same period: 85% in the 2025 paper vs 54% in the 2023 article. Why such a difference? Is it because one estimated the whole US mining whereas the other one focused on the top 34 mines?
In any case, the 2025 paper is for the US whereas this article and the CCAF estimate is about the world. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
OK it seems that the difference is indeed in this "marginal" methodology as the 2025 paper says: "Fossil fuel power plants generated 85% of the increased electricity demand from Bitcoin mines, including 138 coal-fired and 497 natural gas-fired plants." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The issue with CCAF isn't that it's not reliable, it's that the data is self-reported by industry and should be treated as a wp:primary since it is conflict-prone and respondent-reported. It uses self-reported methodology.
The lead should summarize the the balanced state of knowledge wp:lead, because the numbers vary between sources.
It's wp:synth if the article states or implies that bitcoin's actual 2025 energy mix is 48/52, when the source itself only says "respondents reported".
Is there somewhere where I can find more information about the bloomberg terminal source? Bloomberg terminal is a software program and not a place where things are published by bloomberg. I'm not sure where to go to verify the source. Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not our job to assess the RS. For instance I think that the methodology of the 2025 paper is non sense and their results wrong but it is there and has to be cited (and thanks for adding it, I don't know how I missed it!).
The % we have for fossil are:
Bloomberg 2023: ~50% globally
NYT/WattTime 2023: 54% US only
Nature Com, Aug 2022 to July 2023: 85% fossil (marginal), US only (top 34)
CCAF 2025: 47% globally (based on a survey of half the hash rate)
Bloomberg has a research team and they publish content. The author tweeted it back then ( https://x.com/Jamie1Coutts/status/1702232759866163351 ) but I don't know how to access the whole text other than paying the $25k access to the terminal.
Saying based on the above RS that global mining is about half renewable is a correct representation of the state of the literature. We can add caveats but that's the best we have today. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
We also have that one ( https://climate.mit.edu/posts/climate-impacts-bitcoin-mining-us ) already cited in the article but not for that (should be added) that puts fossil in the US at 60%, "based on data from 13 publicly listed mining companies that account for one-fourth of the total network hashrate as of the end of 2022".
Please also note that 41% of the CCAF respondents are publicly listed companies. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe it's the editor's job to assess if it is primary, secondary, or tertiary WP:PSTS. The CCAF figure is primary and should be treated as such.
When it comes summarizing the sources, like deciding if one should be ignored or elevated, editors can't do that. We would have to refer to an independent secondary source which does the summary then cite that.
Thanks for the info with bloomberg terminal. I just wasn't able to find any information about it. Sibshops (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Reading again the 2023 NYT/WattTime article it is identical to the 2025 Nature Comms paper co-authored by NYT/WattTime:
"The additional power use across the country also causes as much carbon pollution as adding 3.5 million gas-powered cars to America’s roads, according to an analysis by WattTime, a nonprofit tech company. Many of the Bitcoin operations promote themselves as environmentally friendly and set up in areas rich with renewable energy, but their power needs are far too great to be satisfied by those sources alone. As a result, they have become a boon for the fossil fuel industry: WattTime found that coal and natural gas plants kick in to meet 85 percent of the demand these Bitcoin operations add to their grids."
"“I’m very surprised,” Mr. Cummins said, when told the estimates for Applied Digital’s Jamestown operation. He said his operation uses the electricity that is available on the grid and cannot control whether it comes from clean or dirty sources, which is affected by all customers’ demand. The miners generally prefer calculating emissions based on that mix of power."
"Using that method, WattTime estimated that they consume 54 percent fossil fuel-generated power, resulting in nearly 10.4 million tons of carbon emissions."
So:
1. These two sources should be treated as one.
2. We can safely say about half fossil in the US based on energy mix
3. We can add that one source says 85% fossil based on marginal use.
4. At the global level it's still about half per RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah fair, so it's measured through different methodologies. How about if we call out both methods in the lead then?
In the lead:
Estimates of bitcoin’s electricity sources vary by method and region; some analyses suggest around half from low-carbon sources globally, while U.S.-focused marginal analyses find much higher fossil dependence.
Then in the body:
List various sources Sibshops (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The lead should focus on the world. There is no reason to mention the US, China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran or whatever in the lead. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hm.. I think a lot of my concerns still remain.
1. Synthesizing the data across different scopes and methods. Like we can't just decide to leave out US-studies from the lead, especially with such a large portion of the hash rate being in the US.
2. Heavily relying on primary/self-reported sources as fact in the lead without attribution of method caveats.
3. Leaving out peer-reviewed/scholarly works which came to different conclusions Sibshops (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess since there's no consensus. I'll just leave it alone.
It just doesn't seem like a strong source to me to put into the lead.
It would be like saying, "We asked 49 tobacco companies how healthy tobacco is and they all said it was healthy."
Either way, I tried to clean up other sections. Sibshops (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the page is about the "Environmental impact of bitcoin" would it makes sense to move the research talking about what cryptocurrency mining could to a later section in the article? 
Talking about what bitcoin could do doesn't describe the actual impact of bitcoin, but rather describes possible ways its impact could be lessened in the future if conditions are met.
For example, this doesn't makes sense in the lead since there's no evidence that this is being done at scale.

Scholars argue that bitcoin mining could support renewable energy development by utilizing surplus electricity from wind and solar.
I feel like in general the could research is given too much weight here instead of focusing on the actual impact which is what the article is about. Sibshops (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There isn't much research on the topic of the environmental impact of bitcoin and overall all RS are cited in the article with about one sentence per RS (or less if some papers can be combined). So equal weight is given to equally important RS. There is no reason to weight things differently. It totally makes sense in the lead to give weight to what is in the article. About one sentence per "big" paragraph or section is the norm.
It's indeed unfortunate that research hasn't quantified the "could" but we have to deal with what we have. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
But if there isn't enough research wouldn't it make sense to make the article should be shorter, instead of trying to find things to fill the page up with?
I'm saying that the hypothetical benefits of mining shouldn't be given equal weight as the current impact of mining.
It doesn't seem to follow how other "Environmental Impact of ..." pages go. Hypothetical benefits are not giving prominent weight in those articles, either. Sibshops (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
We give equal weight to RS, that's it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I understand the intent to give space to all reliable sources, but per WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT, it should reflect the current evidence, and not give equal space to speculative research.
Like the article is titled "Environmental impact of bitcoin" so it should summorize what is known to be happening rather than what could happen under certain assumptions.
Hypothetical or conditional studies (those using could or may) describe potential mitigation, not current impacts and may fit better at the end of the article in like a "Mitigation" or "Potential benefits" section later in the article.
It would match up with how other "Environmental impact of..." articles like Environmental_impacts_of_animal_agriculture#Mitigation_options or Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Mitigation handle speculative research, by separating it from actual measured impacts in the lead or even the body. Sibshops (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Another idea would be to leave it in but also include the study which talks about how crypto mining isn't currency helping with environmental sustainability.
A 2025 study in Scientific Reports of ten major cryptocurrency-producing countries found that Bitcoin mining's electricity use was linked to worse environmental sustainability. Sibshops (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
That Romanian-Saudi-Azeri-Algerian-Qatari (lol) paper is a joke. Old datasets, wrong analytical scale (national vs local), and no causal identification. In a normal world it should go to the trash.  Given how Wikipedia works I'm not sure we can remove it unfortunately. On the other side we have proper high-quality research by Fengqi You.
So we just give due weight to RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Hm... That's fair, I'll see if there's another source.
I'm not against adding research by Fengqi You so the article is balanced, personally. Sibshops (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I added another peer-reviewed source and the assessment by Fengqi You. Sibshops (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@GenoV84 if you want to add links please discuss here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@GenoV84: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @A455bcd9, links to things like Collapsology implies an association not included in any sources. Unless a RS discusses topics like Collapsology explicitly, it can be considered original research as it makes an implied association. Sibshops (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Sibshops: Links in the "See also" section aren't considered WP:OR, so this policy doesn't apply here. They can be included as long as they are even tangentially related to the article (i.e., technology and the internet): Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. GenoV84 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
> WP:OR, so this policy doesn't apply here
As far as I'm aware, the WP:OR policy covers the entire document. Sibshops (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I guess if you feel that WP:OR doesn't apply, here. It feels editorialized to include some of these links. Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Sibshops and @A455bcd9: In accordance with the aforementioned MOS, I propose to keep the links that I added before while removing Collapsology and Speculation; the other ones are fine. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: According to the WP policy MOS:SEEALSO, the "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and "build the web". However, the section itself is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one.
The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically. Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy.
Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. GenoV84 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
None of these links make sense. They're unrelated. Why not Energy in El Salvador? Quantum computing? Chernobyl disaster?
@A455bcd9: That's your own opinion, and I see nothing wrong with that. They can be included as long as they are even tangentially related to the article (i.e., technology and the internet): Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. GenoV84 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
And the portals are already listed at the bottom of the article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, those can be removed if they  appear to be redundant. GenoV84 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Sibshops and @A455bcd9: In accordance with the aforementioned MOS, I propose to keep the links that I added before while removing Collapsology and Speculation; the other ones are fine. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I think only the environmental impact of computers is the only one which is relevant as it's discussed in the body. The rest are not discussed anyway in the body of the article. The article has nothing to do with artificial intelligence, for example. Sibshops (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It is relevant, along with other tangentially related articles such as Cryptocurrency bubble, Digital Revolution, Environmental impact of artificial intelligence, Environmental impact of computers, and Fourth Industrial Revolution. There's no rule that prevents these topics to be included in the See also section. Quite the contrary, they are related to this topic as well as the one that you mentioned. The fact that these topics are not directly discussed in the article doesn't matter: we are talking about the See also section, which is supposed to include tangentially related topics, as the MOS clearly states. That's the whole point. GenoV84 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hm.. AI is two steps removed from bitcoin mining. They both are housed in a data center, but don't share any direct association. If you want to link to something, maybe you can link to Data_center#Water_consumption_and_environmental_impact? If we include everything two steps away from bitcoin mining it would be a very long list. Sibshops (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. In other words, it would be impossible to include everything in the See also section, so we have to collaborate and select a few WP articles that can be included in the list. GenoV84 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe I just don't understand the association. Could you go through each one and explain (using common sense) how they are related to the article? Sibshops (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Proposed list:
Cryptocurrency bubble – Speculative bubble involving cryptocurrency prices (bitcoin is a cryptocurrency)
Digital Revolution – Industrial shift to information technologyPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets (data centers for cryptocurrency mining are part of it)
Environmental impact of artificial intelligence (environmental concern similar to bitcoin mining)
Environmental impact of computers – Environmentally sustainable computing and information technologyPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets (environmental concern similar to bitcoin mining)
Fourth Industrial Revolution – 2010s–present technological convergence era (data centers for cryptocurrency mining are part of it)
Feel free to suggest the addition of more related wikilinks to the list. Useful wikilinks can be found in the categories that include this article, as per MOS. GenoV84 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I think with this explanation, there's a good list for tangentially related topics.
Bitcoin mining is tangentially related to bitcoin which is is tangentially related to cryptocurrencies which is tangentially related to Cryptocurrency bubble. Cryptocurrency bubble itself doesn't touch on or discuss bitcoin mining so it isn't tangentially related. Instead of including cryptocurrency bubble, bitcoin is probably a better inclusion.
For the digital revolution, Bitcoin mining is tangentially related to data centers which is tangentially related to Digital revolution. data centers is probably the better inclusion here.
For Environmental impact of artificial intelligence, this article is tangentially related to environmental issues and environmental issues are tangentially related to Environmental impact of artificial intelligence, so Environmental issues is probably a better as part of the See Also.
For Environmental impact of computers - bitcoin mining is related to the environmental impact of computers without any steps in between as this topic can include a discussion on bitcoin mining.
Etc..
Sibshops (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the See also section cannot list articles that are already mentioned in the article itself, such as data centers and bitcoin; those additions would be redundant. GenoV84 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm (reluctantly) OK with Environmental impact of artificial intelligence and Environmental impact of computers. The rest: irrelevant. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The AI angle could even be developed in the article given the ongoing switch of some miners: AI Data Centers Are Banging on Crypto’s Door (WSJ) and Major Bitcoin mining firm pivoting to AI, plans to fully abandon crypto mining by 2027 as miners convert to AI en masse a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. If the other topic mentions this one then it could be considered related. Sibshops (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the implementation of these changes and additions to the article. GenoV84 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)