4 ms·

But that's the thing: git is very close to a blockchain! The only thing that's missing from git that makes it not quite a blockchain is that the way we use git

But that's the thing: git is very close to a blockchain! The only thing that's missing from git that makes it not quite a blockchain is that the way we use git doesn't expect there to be a linear series of commits. But with relatively little effort you can add that to git, making a blockchain out of it. What blockchains do in cryptocurrencies is not magic: they're just the basic auditing mechanism that allows everyone with a full node to verify that all the rules are being followed by parsing all the transactions. The simplest way to do that is with a linear chain of blocks that you validate, starting at block zero. All the "magic" is in the consensus mechanisms that decide which chain of blocks is in fact the real chain, not the blockchains themselves.

tscs37 8y ago
Git is a blockchains. I don't see any rules that a consensus algorithm needs to be non-human or that only a single chain can be authorative. Git is a blockchain that has none of the usual problems of blockchains since the arbiter is a human and they can do as they please. Argreement between humans is a social procedure.
- petertodd 8y ago
  My only real disagreement with you is I'd call Git a blockdag, because it's a more general directed acyclic graph rather than a linear chain. But that's just a disagreement about what's more helpful terminology.
admax88q 8y ago
I think the term "blockchain" implies more than just a merkle-tree but some level of distributed concensus. A plain merkle-tree or merkle-list. Such technology has been around for a while before "blockchain" was such a hyped technology.
knorker 8y ago
I think you missed my point. When people talk about blockchains they're not talking about a DAG, even they're related. Playing a semantics game gets us nowhere. I could try to be more specific and say distributed blockchain every time. But then you'll say oh but git does merging and network, so it's distributed. I'll use a new phrase, and you'll point out that RAM is usually not the same chip as the CPU, so it's distributed, etc… etc… I'm certainly not saying anything is magic. If anyone says cryptocurrencies are magic or Holy, then it's their proponents. I'm saying "but why…?" to the explanation, not "what sorcery is this?!". You might as well say that "algorithms" are used in crimecurrencies, so "you're using the same technology to visit this web site". In short: By no meaningful definition has blockchains come up with a use case.

tscs37 8y ago

Git is a blockchains. I don't see any rules that a consensus algorithm needs to be non-human or that only a single chain can be authorative. Git is a blockchain that has none of the usual problems of blockchains since the arbiter is a human and they can do as they please. Argreement between humans is a social procedure.

petertodd 8y ago
My only real disagreement with you is I'd call Git a blockdag, because it's a more general directed acyclic graph rather than a linear chain. But that's just a disagreement about what's more helpful terminology.

admax88q 8y ago

I think the term "blockchain" implies more than just a merkle-tree but some level of distributed concensus. A plain merkle-tree or merkle-list. Such technology has been around for a while before "blockchain" was such a hyped technology.

knorker 8y ago

I think you missed my point. When people talk about blockchains they're not talking about a DAG, even they're related. Playing a semantics game gets us nowhere. I could try to be more specific and say distributed blockchain every time. But then you'll say oh but git does merging and network, so it's distributed. I'll use a new phrase, and you'll point out that RAM is usually not the same chip as the CPU, so it's distributed, etc… etc… I'm certainly not saying anything is magic. If anyone says cryptocurrencies are magic or Holy, then it's their proponents. I'm saying "but why…?" to the explanation, not "what sorcery is this?!". You might as well say that "algorithms" are used in crimecurrencies, so "you're using the same technology to visit this web site". In short: By no meaningful definition has blockchains come up with a use case.