Talk:Bitcoin SV
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New sources[edit]
- Binance delists Craig Wright's “Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision”. Financial Times. 15 April 2019.
- Bitcoin Offshoot Slumps After Crypto Exchange Delisting. Bloomberg. 15 April 2019. Ҡ (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Request to reconsider page deletion and redirection[edit]
In December 2018 there was a discussion about deleting this page which resulted in a decision to redirect the page to Bitcoin Cash. I respect this decision although I do not agree with it. December 2018 was one month after the split between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Cash and there was considerable scepticism at that time about the split.
However, we are now 20 months further, in July 2020 and Bitcoin SV is still here, still in the top 10 by market cap, and has seen considerable development during this period. It has its own unique philosophy and vision and deserves its own page.
Some of the original discussion was about notability and sources:
- Cointelegraph article on Bitcoin SV record breaking block - Cointelegraph is listed as a "generally yes" reputable source
- This Bitcoin Rival Just Doubled In Value--Here's Why
- Coindesk Top 20 - Coindesk is listed as a "probably" reputable source
Danielconnolly (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Listed by who? CoinTelegraph and Coindesk are crypto sites, so unusable for notability. The Forbes link is a contributor blog. Do you have mainstream RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cointelegraph and Coindesk are specifically listed as Wikipedia reliable sources here - Danielconnolly (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- How about ZDNET, investopedia.com lists Bitcoin SV in the top 10, German Wikipedia, finivi.com? Danielconnolly (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing and the discussion you cite - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- How so? Could you please explain? I realise that my first reference to the Cointelegraph and Coindesk sources does not satisfy the notability requirements, which is why I expanded it to include the additional sources. The German wikipedia reference is a circular reference, it's just me being cheeky. ZDNet is cited on many Wikipedia pages and is not crypto specific. Investopedia and Finivi are also not crypto specific. These references either focus entirely on Bitcoin SV, or, in the case of Finivi, include and compare it with the two other main Bitcoin variants. Danielconnolly (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Bitcoin SV[edit]
Why can SV not have it's own wikipedia page? As a proven and compliant working coin with a broad and growing ecosystem of apps it should be able to have it's own section 2600:1702:2DC1:950:30B6:4B29:A06:BCD5 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)