Did you know that the most-cited research on Bitcoin and energy use - the studies that for years have been used to shape policy, regulation, and public opinion - are based on flawed methods?

Today we’re delving back in our CRO Simon’s research archives and discussing the paper that put  the Digital Asset Research Institute (DARI) on the map. The paper: Runaway Citations and the Persistence of Bitcoin Misinformation, was co-authored by Simon and Dr. Rian Dewhurst of Würzburg University.

It shows how a handful of poorly executed papers have dominated global discourse about Bitcoin’s environmental impact for nearly a decade.

How misinformation spread

It all started with a 2018 commentary paper by Alex de Vries titled Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem.

That’s a key detail: it wasn’t a study with new data or replicable methods - it was an opinion piece published in a scientific journal. It was short, only a few pages long and conducted no actual research just kind of collected a set of cherry picked figures and made a set of alarming claims about how much energy bitcoin does, and might use. 

The problem is, it was wrong on almost all counts. The reasons Mr de Vries might want to throw shade at bitcoin are up for debate. But the damage he did to the narrative is undeniable. 

Commentaries like this are normally subject to a lower level of peer review, because they’re intended to provoke discussion, not to serve as definitive research.

But in this case, the commentary was treated as hard science by journalists and academics alike. It has now been cited over 1,100 times across different databases, often as if it were an empirical study.

Those citations became the seed of a runaway feedback loop:

• Ten commentary-style papers repeating similar claims (all based on de Vries 2018) have collected nearly 5,000 citations between them.

• Media coverage amplifies those citations roughly 10 to 1, creating an estimated 50,000 derivative articles.

• Meanwhile, rigorous, data-driven studies represent only 2 percent of total citations - despite producing reproducible, verifiable findings.

The result is a case study in how weak evidence can gain global traction simply because it’s easy to cite.

Starting in 2018 a single paper has infiltrated the narrative through its extensive citations.

What’s a citation, and why does it matter?

In academic writing, a citation is when one paper references another to support its argument. It’s how knowledge accumulates - each new paper builds on previous work.

But when a commentary masquerades as research and gets cited like a primary study, the distortion compounds. Over time, those citations make the flawed work look authoritative, while the solid research remains buried.

Why this matters

Bad science doesn’t just stay in journals - it shapes policy.

Flawed commentary has been used to justify mining bans, regulatory proposals, and negative media narratives, despite mounting evidence that Bitcoin mining supports renewable energy, grid stability, and methane mitigation.

Reliable studies are now showing the opposite narrative:

• Mining can stabilise renewable microgrids.

• It can reduce waste energy and improve grid reliability.

• It often uses otherwise curtailed power, cutting carbon intensity.

• It can also improve the viability of renewable energy projects.

Bitcoin’s role in the energy system is additive, rather than extractive. Mining is a good customer for energy that would otherwise be wasted, or would create emissions.

State of Play: Bitcoin Mining and Energy

The reality of Bitcoin’s energy use is very different. Is it increasing? Yes. But the type of increase is what’s important. Bitcoin’s growth in adoption is accelerating. While network security is at record strength, with hashrate around 1 ZH/s and rising. Yet energy use per terahash keeps falling thanks to next-generation ASICs now achieving 12–16 joules per terahash - meaning miners are securing more of the network with less energy than ever.

As above, the energy that is being used by bitcoin is more and more marginal for other uses. It’s often wasted, stranded, curtailed, or too expensive to connect to the grid. So a growth in efficiency and change towards more marginal energy use is a very valuable niche for a very price sensitive consumer of electricity like bitcoin. It creates win-win outcomes for both bitcoin and the generators of that power. 

WooCharts shows the share of mining powered by sustainable energy trending steadily upward. The DARI BEEST model, which corrects existing sources data by including off-grid hydro, solar, wind, and flare-gas mitigation, estimates Bitcoin’s clean-energy share as high as 56.76% zero-emission power - higher than most major industries.

Together, these data show an ecosystem becoming both more efficient and more sustainable. Each upgrade cycle brings lower watts per hash and a greener mix of energy sources, even as the network’s total security keeps breaking records.