> So what I imagine when we talk about a single database is just some mapping of stock shares to owner. Mmhmm. Keep simple things as simple as possible. > So

> So what I imagine when we talk about a single database is just some mapping of stock shares to owner. Mmhmm. Keep simple things as simple as possible. > So now you have a datastore where the current state relies on an ever-growing stack of immutable changesets. This sounds exactly like what we talk about when we talk about blockchains. Well, if that's what a "blockchain" is, then git [0] was doing blockchains way before they were cool. > There are people who define a blockchain more strictly (e.g, The Blockchain(TM) with decentralization and crypto) I can see not having a distributed ledger, but if you eject the cryptographic part of it then you don't get any of the tamper resistance. Without that, all you have is a linked list. And -as we all know- "linked list" is a much less sexy phrase than "blockchain". [0] And -if we drop the cryptographically verifiable history part- pretty much every VCS ever.