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

Fair point, perhaps this would be a more reliable source but the information is the same:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

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

Citing a scam from the most famous con artist in the industry is never a good form.

Seems like an unintentional mistake though.

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.

opcodes that are almost all disabled in the real bitcoin

How is that implemented?

that wasn't the point

So the point is to be technically correct but practically irrelevant?

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

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".

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?

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.

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.