Talk:Bitcoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


RFC on energy use estimates in the LEAD[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement[edit]

Shall we including this statement diff in the LEAD: "and was responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions."[1] (or similar)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The journal Joule is published by Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.
As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:
So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a WP:PREPRINT as Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.
Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.
I also agree with JPxG's comment above. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count 20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".
It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).
Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).
The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to the debate, this recently published paper Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review mentions that de Vries' analysis "has been widely criticized for its oversimplified view of mining operations and dependence on anecdotal examples to back the assumption". They explain further in the article what they consider are weaknesses of de Vries' estimate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have requested a close by an uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know that was the way to do it. Actually Jtbobwaysf had already done it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request. Nemov (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polling[edit]

  • Remove from WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is WP:PROMO of WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral tending towards remove: per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY + per JPxG (yes it's whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as WP:WIKIVOICE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Not from peer reviewed source and not WP:SIGNIFICANT207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited 90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CNBC citation you added cites the White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retain, and coverage of the topic should be expanded in the body because of its importance. One paragraph tucked away in the Mining section is not adequate for this facet with an article of its own. It will be easier to incorporate it into the lead when it is addressed properly in the body. 3df (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. Per my discussion comment. Get a proper RS, see what they say, then reform. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove from lead for MOS:LEADREL, but retain in article. The source seems strong enough for inclusion (per A455bcd9's discussion comment) to establish that such estimates exist, but does not establish that this estimate is a central fact about Bitcoin worthy of inclusion in the lead.Carleas (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove from the lead but can include in the article if reliable sources are cited. NihonGoBashi (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove as per Antoine in the Discussion section (though I don't think it's a RS due to the lack of peer review). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ de Vries, Alex; Gallersdörfer, Ulrich; Klaaßen, Lena; Stoll, Christian (16 March 2022). "Revisiting Bitcoin's carbon footprint". Joule. 6 (3): 498–502. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.02.005. ISSN 2542-4351. S2CID 247143939.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024[edit]

Add to history section,

In 2021, a Bitcoin Futures ETF, BITO, from Proshares was approved and listed. [1]

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added. Thank you! Vgbyp (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024[edit]

Add to history section,

In 2017, the first futures on Bitcoin was introduced in the CME. [1]

207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Vgbyp (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024[edit]

Change 'bitcoin' throughout the article to 'Bitcoin' because it is a proper noun and deserves to capitalized. 218.149.60.143 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Note: While I agree with the IP, I also believe that first, we must change the titles of the linked articles (such as Environmental effects of bitcoin). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Bitcoin#Units_and_divisibility: No uniform capitalization convention exists; some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the unit of account. The Oxford English Dictionary advocates the use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: per the above. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decentralized?[edit]

According to our cryptocurrency article:

An October 2021 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Bitcoin suffers from systemic risk as the top 10,000 addresses control about one-third of all Bitcoin in circulation.[1] It is even worse for Bitcoin miners, with 0.01% controlling 50% of the capacity. According to researcher Flipside Crypto, less than 2% of anonymous accounts control 95% of all available Bitcoin supply.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Bitcoin Is Still Concentrated in a Few Hands, Study Finds". Time. Retrieved 3 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Bitcoin's price just passed a huge milestone". Fortune. Archived from the original on 3 March 2022. Retrieved 3 March 2022.

Saying Bitcoin is "decentralized" is a bit misleading because it implies that the bitcoin network is democratic and fair to its users, but really it is not the case. I think it would be better to say "trustless" or something like that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bitcoin is described by RS as decentralized, so we describe it like this. However, there decentralization is a continuum and centralization challenges you mention are addressed in this subsection: Bitcoin#Scalability_and_decentralization_challenges. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are three kinds of decentralization in bitcoin: decentralization of stock (highly centralized, but mostly through exchanges and wallet services), decentralization of mining (highly centralized, but mostly through pools), and decentralization of network nodes (highly decentralized). When the article says that bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, it means it in a sense of network, because neither control of stock nor control of mining gives control over the protocol. We could try finding RS for each sort of decentralization and discuss them in more detail in the article, of course. Vgbyp (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XBT lol?[edit]

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

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


no one calls BTC XBT

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

141.151.92.241 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code. Vgbyp (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYSE ETF rigged[edit]

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

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