> Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. It feels like we're arguing about semantics here. Non decentralis

> Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. It feels like we're arguing about semantics here. Non decentralised, cryptocurrency-less blockchains have existed since before Bitcoin and were just called databases, event stores, public logs, etc. The true innovation behind Bitcoin was its consensus mechanism (which requires both decentralisation and currency). I'd argue that technology which was well established prior to Bitcoin (e.g. a centralised tamper resistant database system) does not deserve to be called a "blockchain". Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.