6 ms·

So if you want a "tamper-proof", auditable, decentralized data store, go with block chain.

dfox 8y ago
Notice that the flow chart does not mention decentralized. The "decentralization" in cryptocurrencies come from whatever mining/proof-of-something mechanism build on top and has nothing to do with blockchain itself.
- calibas 8y ago
  It mentions decentralization, but in a rather smart-ass way: "Are the entities with write access having a hard time deciding who should be in control of the data store."
- krastanov 8y ago
  I do not think I agree. Blockchains are decentralized consensus. If you remove the decentralized consensus algorithm from a block chain, you are left with simply a Merkle tree, a much older concept (used in git for instance where there is no global consensus).
blattimwind 8y ago
> So if you want a "tamper-proof", auditable, decentralized data store, go with git. Yes.
- calibas 8y ago
  Git isn't decentralized, each data store has an owner.
  - dfox 8y ago
    In my view the most sane definition of what blockchain is includes Git.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    That’s true of all decentralized algorithms. Decentralized just means someone else can own it too.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    Therefore, Bitcoin isn't decentralized, each node has an owner.
    - calibas 8y ago
      The owner of a node on a blockchain doesn't own the data store, the owner of a git repo does. The owner of a git repo can even rewrite the whole history of a repo. To equate the two doesn't make much sense to me. Seems this is an exercise in how loosely we can define blockchain. In my opinion all that's being achieved is confusing blockchains, as defined by their creator, with merkle trees.
      - pritambaral 8y ago
        > The owner of a git repo can even rewrite the whole history of a repo. If tomorrow Linus rewrites even a part of history of [0], every single one of Debian, Canonical, Red Hat, Amazon, Gentoo, Google, AOSP and my-friend-who-always-builds-mainline are going to notice. They are all going to continue to have the choice to fork their own; only this time, better motivated. Hell, if Linus is sensible in such a scenario, he will abandon his 'history-rewritten' fork and clone one of these guys' and carry on, just so everyone can stay on the same fork with the least effort. Yes, rewriting history would be a fork. Git is not a VCS where a remote can rewrite local branches. Only the local user can make Git do so. If someone decides to follow Linus's history-rewritten fork, they will have to voluntarily do so; and even if they don't, they can always carry the original fork on among themselves, paying no heed to Linus [1]. Does this sound similar to how forks work in Bitcoin and Ethereum? ---- 0: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... 1: This is because Linus is the owner of only one repo: [0]. Upon cloning a repo, the cloner becomes the owner of the clone. Ownership does not transfer. A cloner is free to go their separate way with their clone, as they are free to continue to copy changes dilligently from the source, and everything in between. Git does not concern itself with reputation or authority.
        calibas 8y ago
        Yes, and that's part of the beauty of git, everyone can go fork it and create their own version of a data store. In the case of something like a cryptocurrency, letting everyone create their own version of a ledger and get to decide which one is "correct", would be a complete and total failure of the system. In my opinion, that should be part of what differentiates a merkle tree based VCS from a blockchain. The point of a blockchain is a singular, decentralized, "immutable" data store. Unlike git, version control is not what everything revolves around, version control is there so we can be sure it's a singular, decentralized, "immutable" data store. I just don't see the point in defining blockchains so vaguely that even git counts. In practice, these are different systems that deserve different terminology.
- ric2b 8y ago
  git doesn't do automated consensus, any inconsistency must be resolved manually. That doesn't work for a global system where data will often arrive in a different order to different nodes.

dfox 8y ago

Notice that the flow chart does not mention decentralized. The "decentralization" in cryptocurrencies come from whatever mining/proof-of-something mechanism build on top and has nothing to do with blockchain itself.

calibas 8y ago
It mentions decentralization, but in a rather smart-ass way: "Are the entities with write access having a hard time deciding who should be in control of the data store."
krastanov 8y ago
I do not think I agree. Blockchains are decentralized consensus. If you remove the decentralized consensus algorithm from a block chain, you are left with simply a Merkle tree, a much older concept (used in git for instance where there is no global consensus).

blattimwind 8y ago

> So if you want a "tamper-proof", auditable, decentralized data store, go with git. Yes.

calibas 8y ago
Git isn't decentralized, each data store has an owner.
- dfox 8y ago
  In my view the most sane definition of what blockchain is includes Git.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  That’s true of all decentralized algorithms. Decentralized just means someone else can own it too.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Therefore, Bitcoin isn't decentralized, each node has an owner.
  - calibas 8y ago
    The owner of a node on a blockchain doesn't own the data store, the owner of a git repo does. The owner of a git repo can even rewrite the whole history of a repo. To equate the two doesn't make much sense to me. Seems this is an exercise in how loosely we can define blockchain. In my opinion all that's being achieved is confusing blockchains, as defined by their creator, with merkle trees.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > The owner of a git repo can even rewrite the whole history of a repo. If tomorrow Linus rewrites even a part of history of [0], every single one of Debian, Canonical, Red Hat, Amazon, Gentoo, Google, AOSP and my-friend-who-always-builds-mainline are going to notice. They are all going to continue to have the choice to fork their own; only this time, better motivated. Hell, if Linus is sensible in such a scenario, he will abandon his 'history-rewritten' fork and clone one of these guys' and carry on, just so everyone can stay on the same fork with the least effort. Yes, rewriting history would be a fork. Git is not a VCS where a remote can rewrite local branches. Only the local user can make Git do so. If someone decides to follow Linus's history-rewritten fork, they will have to voluntarily do so; and even if they don't, they can always carry the original fork on among themselves, paying no heed to Linus [1]. Does this sound similar to how forks work in Bitcoin and Ethereum? ---- 0: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... 1: This is because Linus is the owner of only one repo: [0]. Upon cloning a repo, the cloner becomes the owner of the clone. Ownership does not transfer. A cloner is free to go their separate way with their clone, as they are free to continue to copy changes dilligently from the source, and everything in between. Git does not concern itself with reputation or authority.
      - calibas 8y ago
        Yes, and that's part of the beauty of git, everyone can go fork it and create their own version of a data store. In the case of something like a cryptocurrency, letting everyone create their own version of a ledger and get to decide which one is "correct", would be a complete and total failure of the system. In my opinion, that should be part of what differentiates a merkle tree based VCS from a blockchain. The point of a blockchain is a singular, decentralized, "immutable" data store. Unlike git, version control is not what everything revolves around, version control is there so we can be sure it's a singular, decentralized, "immutable" data store. I just don't see the point in defining blockchains so vaguely that even git counts. In practice, these are different systems that deserve different terminology.
ric2b 8y ago
git doesn't do automated consensus, any inconsistency must be resolved manually. That doesn't work for a global system where data will often arrive in a different order to different nodes.