4 ms·

Feels a bit like that's a post-facto argument to me. It sounds like the Surity thing had "blocks" consisting of a week's worth of documents which got chained t

Feels a bit like that's a post-facto argument to me. It sounds like the Surity thing had "blocks" consisting of a week's worth of documents which got chained together and had their hash published irrevocably every week. Without the subsequent invention and popularity of the specific implementation of the bitcoin blockchain - I don't think the slow/costly consensus "feature" could be considered a requirement to distinguish between "hash chains" and "block chains" like that. (But I'm regularly on the losing side of nomenclature arguments - I'm still pissed at all the people who've decided they should call my non-autonomous quadcopters "drones"...)

jobigoud 8y ago
> I'm still pissed at all the people who've decided they should call my non-autonomous quadcopters "drones" Apparently we should call them quadpters because it's based on helicopter for which the ethymology is not heli + copter, but helico + pter, like in helicoidal and pterodactyl.
- taejo 8y ago
  Or tetrapter, to stick with Greek roots (though I'm personally fine with heteroradicalism!)
- bigiain 8y ago
  From now on, I'm shall call them "spinning dinosaurs"! "Hey mister! Is that your drone?" "No kid, it's not a drone, it's a spinning dinosaur..."
bittcto 8y ago
The entire point of Bitcoin is the distributed trustless consensus mechanism. Read the Nakamoto white paper, it’s all about double spending. A chain of hashed data dates back to Merkle himself, that’s what a Merkle tree is. The entire point of bitcoin is distributed independent truth and that’s the entire point of a Blockchain.