4 ms·
I also hold Bitcoin, I have nothing against it. However, I don't see what's wrong with using and referring to blockchains in contexts that are not Bitcoin. Sure
by woah 11y ago
I also hold Bitcoin, I have nothing against it. However, I don't see what's wrong with using and referring to blockchains in contexts that are not Bitcoin. Sure, it's an assembly of technologies used to accomplish a goal, like any software. It's like getting mad about people saying "database", when "everyone knows that databases are just conventional data structures and indexes".
- CydeWeys 11y agoIt's fine to talk about non-Bitcoin blockchains, e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin both have perfectly functional non-Bitcoin blockchains. No one would argue that. The issue is when you try to apply the word "blockchain" to a technology that has been neutered to the point that it no longer has proofs-of-work in it. It's not really a blockchain at that point because you've removed the main innovation that actually makes the blockchain idea useful. That is what the commenter you responded to meant when he said: > I'm arguing that the bitcoin protocol without the Nakamoto consensus is not an improvement over conventional clearing technology As an analogy, let's say you design a car with no engine, but still insist on calling it a car because it looks like a car and it has most of the same parts. It's not really an illuminating discussion to keep debating whether or not it should be called a car so long as you understand the objection that the car-shaped-object is no longer useful for the purposes that people commonly associate cars with serving.