3 ms·

It's not. This in particular is completely lacking: > decentralized consensus?

• Nuzzerino 9y ago
  Correct. While the post doesn't do the idea justice (and of course is a bit inaccurate), it still brings light to a good point, which is that blockchains may have some strong, legitimate use cases. We're still in the hype cycle of the technology, and the industry is rife with fraud. When the dust clears, I'm betting on seeing some important and successful projects emerge from the ashes.
• gizmo686 9y ago
  What do you mean? Almost all git projects have a general consensus on what the code looks like. This concencensus is not immediate (eg. at any given point in time, different nodes may have a different view of the repository), but over time nodes tend to converge on a single "true" history. When this does not happen, we have what is called a "fork", which also occurs in blockchain based cryptocurrencies. Put another way, every clone of the Linux repository agrees on what the kernel looked like at some point in the past (and all prior points which are recorded by git); however there is no central authority asserting this history.
  • benchaney 9y ago
    But the consensus is determined by people, not git. Or, to put it another way, the lack of consensus algorithm in git is a feature, as it allows people to come to an agreement (or not) independent of the VCS.