4 ms·

I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains". it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked link

I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains". it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked linked list using cryptography. However it IS a novel new piece of technology if we don't define it as that but instead see it for what it actually is. Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. It's only because it used that sort of data structure and applied it to consensus mechanism that it became interesting, and that's what blockchain is. Which is why I think this headline is ridiculous.

dozzie 9y ago
> Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. Bullshit. Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. That's all. Other than that, we had cryptographic timestamping protocols for some time already.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  > Bullshit. Hey, be nice. > Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." If that's what you think it is, suit yourself. Not a fan of word-play game. > The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. Yeah, that's what I said. Like you said, it IS novel.
  - dozzie 9y ago
    >> Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." Oh? So you say that they don't mean a cryptographically linked list of blocks, like Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain) describes? Because that's exactly how timestamping works: unmodifiable list of documents, from which you can tell which document was issued earlier. Then what else do they mean?
KirinDave 9y ago
> it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked linked list using cryptography. See I think the problem here is that people don't realize how many things they use are already blockchains and have been blockchains for years. Git is a blockchain, darcs was a blockchain. Hell, lots of Wiki implementations are actually secretly blockchains. What was novel about Satoshi's vision was POW races over the commit rights with enough smarts around how folks would accept blocks. But even then that's a game theoretical way to build the consensus. The chain itself simply records it.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  > What was novel about Satoshi's vision was POW races over the commit rights with enough smarts around how folks would accept blocks. But even then that's a game theoretical way to build the consensus. Like i said, people think of different things when they say blockchain so I don't blame you or anyone. I'm just pointing out the phenomenon. Even the most passionate cryptocurrency evangelists seem to have different ideas on what they think "blockchain" is when you watch their speeches. As you pointed out, the PoW approach to commit rights to a canonical ledger that's distributed is what's novel about this. Some people think this "canonical ledger" concept is not part of what blockchain is, some people do. No one is right or wrong because it's just semantics. When you compare Git to blockchain you are comparing just the data structure aspect, and I'm trying to point out that some people define blockchain as the distributed ledger network itself, which is where the confusion comes from.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > When you compare Git to blockchain you are comparing just the data structure aspect Not really, though. While the git client chooses not to verify it continuously, github does. This is a very powerful feature of git, the history of code is difficult to alter once held (especially if you use modern variants of git that use a secure hash). In a very real sense, git is a blockchain and it's strictly incorrect to suggest that you need an unproven POW game theoretic system designed by an anonymous dude with a fake japanese name. > No one is right or wrong because it's just semantics. Why is it that people cheerfully offer this when called out on blockchains but think I'm being improper for calling Etherium an obvious ponzi scheme designed to enable a bunch of quasi-legal and obviously scammy ICOs and then not have to issue refunds even as the ICO folks get fined and outlawed? > some people define blockchain as the distributed ledger network itself Some people are just using words in a very wrong way. This is technology, not postmodernist social theory. Even if it was postmodernist, the people using these words in this way are just wrong and not speaking to the academic or even industry consensus. "Blockchain" is "web 2.0". It actually meant something specific for a short period and then marketers got ahold of it and it was basically a non-word.

dozzie 9y ago

> Blockchain is interesting because it uses that chunked linked list data structure to create distributed consensus. Bullshit. Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > So it's unfair to just isolate the data structure on its own and say it's not interesting or novel. The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. That's all. Other than that, we had cryptographic timestamping protocols for some time already.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
> Bullshit. Hey, be nice. > Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." If that's what you think it is, suit yourself. Not a fan of word-play game. > The only thing novel in document timestamping service called blockchain is that it doesn't need trusted third party. Yeah, that's what I said. Like you said, it IS novel.
- dozzie 9y ago
  >> Blockchain does not build distributed consensus, it's a totally different thing: document timestamping service. > i think you missed the part where i said "I think this is because people mean different things when they talk about "blockchains"." Oh? So you say that they don't mean a cryptographically linked list of blocks, like Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain) describes? Because that's exactly how timestamping works: unmodifiable list of documents, from which you can tell which document was issued earlier. Then what else do they mean?

KirinDave 9y ago

> it is not interesting if we just see it as some glorified chunked linked list using cryptography. See I think the problem here is that people don't realize how many things they use are already blockchains and have been blockchains for years. Git is a blockchain, darcs was a blockchain. Hell, lots of Wiki implementations are actually secretly blockchains. What was novel about Satoshi's vision was POW races over the commit rights with enough smarts around how folks would accept blocks. But even then that's a game theoretical way to build the consensus. The chain itself simply records it.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
> What was novel about Satoshi's vision was POW races over the commit rights with enough smarts around how folks would accept blocks. But even then that's a game theoretical way to build the consensus. Like i said, people think of different things when they say blockchain so I don't blame you or anyone. I'm just pointing out the phenomenon. Even the most passionate cryptocurrency evangelists seem to have different ideas on what they think "blockchain" is when you watch their speeches. As you pointed out, the PoW approach to commit rights to a canonical ledger that's distributed is what's novel about this. Some people think this "canonical ledger" concept is not part of what blockchain is, some people do. No one is right or wrong because it's just semantics. When you compare Git to blockchain you are comparing just the data structure aspect, and I'm trying to point out that some people define blockchain as the distributed ledger network itself, which is where the confusion comes from.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > When you compare Git to blockchain you are comparing just the data structure aspect Not really, though. While the git client chooses not to verify it continuously, github does. This is a very powerful feature of git, the history of code is difficult to alter once held (especially if you use modern variants of git that use a secure hash). In a very real sense, git is a blockchain and it's strictly incorrect to suggest that you need an unproven POW game theoretic system designed by an anonymous dude with a fake japanese name. > No one is right or wrong because it's just semantics. Why is it that people cheerfully offer this when called out on blockchains but think I'm being improper for calling Etherium an obvious ponzi scheme designed to enable a bunch of quasi-legal and obviously scammy ICOs and then not have to issue refunds even as the ICO folks get fined and outlawed? > some people define blockchain as the distributed ledger network itself Some people are just using words in a very wrong way. This is technology, not postmodernist social theory. Even if it was postmodernist, the people using these words in this way are just wrong and not speaking to the academic or even industry consensus. "Blockchain" is "web 2.0". It actually meant something specific for a short period and then marketers got ahold of it and it was basically a non-word.