4 ms·

You're citing bitcoin sv? Is this a joke?

by polyomino 4y ago

Arnavion 4y ago
Bitcoin had script opcodes before any forks, so it doesn't matter which fork they cite.
- Stevvo 4y ago
  Citing a scam from the most famous con artist in the industry is never a good form.
  - mateuszf 4y ago
    Seems like an unintentional mistake though.
stale2002 4y ago
The source is suspect for sure, but the information is true on this specific point. Bitcoin does have smart contracts, and op codes. Thats correct, regardless of your disagreements with the source.
- polyomino 4y ago
  opcodes that are almost all disabled in the real bitcoin
  - kova12 4y ago
    that wasn't the point
    - sandwichinvest 4y ago
      So the point is to be technically correct but practically irrelevant?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    How is that implemented?
Kranar 4y ago
Fair point, perhaps this would be a more reliable source but the information is the same: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
naoqj 4y ago
idk anything about crypto. why is "bitcoin sv" bad?
- px43 4y ago
  It's a low value Bitcoin fork from Craig Wright, a delusional dude who claims to be Satoshi, so he made a fork where he could control all the Satoshi coins. "SV" means "Satoshi's Vision".
  - naoqj 4y ago
    That's crazy. If he is satoshi what's his excuse for not having the private keys to those coins in the main bitcoin network?
    - svachalek 4y ago
      It would be incredibly stressful for him to prove it, nay as much as he would like to be vindicated, the risk of the fame and the pressure blah blah blah. Sorry I can't be bothered to look up the actual quotes but they're similarly incoherent. He pretends to have them but not to want to use them, even to prove his claims.
      - rvz 4y ago
        To summarize: In conclusion, if he is unable to prove he is Satoshi, he therefore cannot claim to say he is Satoshi, unless he can prove otherwise; but so far he has not. So hence the above unless proven, he is not Satoshi. QED.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Barrera 4y ago
No, it's a mistake by me and should be changed [1]. The link I got was, strangely, the first for the search I ran. I was in a hurry and didn't double-check. BSV is a scam. It appears I can no longer edit the post. Oh well. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

You're citing bitcoin sv? Is this a joke?

Arnavion 4y ago

Bitcoin had script opcodes before any forks, so it doesn't matter which fork they cite.

Stevvo 4y ago
Citing a scam from the most famous con artist in the industry is never a good form.
- mateuszf 4y ago
  Seems like an unintentional mistake though.

stale2002 4y ago

The source is suspect for sure, but the information is true on this specific point. Bitcoin does have smart contracts, and op codes. Thats correct, regardless of your disagreements with the source.

polyomino 4y ago
opcodes that are almost all disabled in the real bitcoin
- kova12 4y ago
  that wasn't the point
  - sandwichinvest 4y ago
    So the point is to be technically correct but practically irrelevant?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- lostmsu 4y ago
  How is that implemented?

Kranar 4y ago

Fair point, perhaps this would be a more reliable source but the information is the same: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

naoqj 4y ago

idk anything about crypto. why is "bitcoin sv" bad?

px43 4y ago
It's a low value Bitcoin fork from Craig Wright, a delusional dude who claims to be Satoshi, so he made a fork where he could control all the Satoshi coins. "SV" means "Satoshi's Vision".
- naoqj 4y ago
  That's crazy. If he is satoshi what's his excuse for not having the private keys to those coins in the main bitcoin network?
  - svachalek 4y ago
    It would be incredibly stressful for him to prove it, nay as much as he would like to be vindicated, the risk of the fame and the pressure blah blah blah. Sorry I can't be bothered to look up the actual quotes but they're similarly incoherent. He pretends to have them but not to want to use them, even to prove his claims.
    - rvz 4y ago
      To summarize: In conclusion, if he is unable to prove he is Satoshi, he therefore cannot claim to say he is Satoshi, unless he can prove otherwise; but so far he has not. So hence the above unless proven, he is not Satoshi. QED.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Barrera 4y ago

No, it's a mistake by me and should be changed [1]. The link I got was, strangely, the first for the search I ran. I was in a hurry and didn't double-check. BSV is a scam. It appears I can no longer edit the post. Oh well. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script