3 ms·

> everyone can go fork it and create their own version of a data store And with cryptocurrencies, everyone can go fork it and create their own ledger. That not

> everyone can go fork it and create their own version of a data store And with cryptocurrencies, everyone can go fork it and create their own ledger. That not many do it is unrelated to the datastructure. > 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. Yes, as a system. > In my opinion, that should be part of what differentiates a merkle tree based VCS from a blockchain. A "merkle tree based VCS" is a system. A cryptocurrency is a system. A blockchain is just a datastructure. > The point of a blockchain is a singular, decentralized, "immutable" data store. Which git is. > Unlike git, version control is not what everything revolves around In git, version control is not what everything revolves around. Git was designed for version control, and a merkle-tree of objects and dirtrees and metadata and commits was chosen to implement it on, which is what everything revolves around. Just like how Bitcoin was designed for payment, and a blockchain of transactions was chosen to implement it on. > I just don't see the point in defining blockchains so vaguely that even git counts. This sounds a bit like you're trying to come up with a definition of "blockchain" with an express purpose of excluding git from it. > In practice, these are different systems [emphasis mine] that deserve different terminology. And this, is the heart of our disagreement. You're comparing the systems git and cryptocurrencies, only you call the latter "blockchains". I'm comparing datastructures, and I distinguish between the terms "cryptocurrency" (which I consider a system) and "blockchain" (which I consider a datastructure).

calibas 8y ago
So what was the first blockchain? I think you're just rebelling against the common definition of a blockchain as a distributed ledger, though I don't understand what's to be gained from that. Seems the community is rather split about this...
- pritambaral 8y ago
  > So what was the first blockchain? Does it matter? What was the first linked-list? > I think you're just rebelling against I'm not "rebelling", I'm asserting. > the common definition of a blockchain as a distributed ledger That's a common application, not a definition; like blockchains and VCSes are common applications of merkle-trees, but not definition. > though I don't understand what's to be gained from that Nothing more that what's to be gained from asserting a linked-list is a list made of elements linking to each other. A blockchain is a chain made of blocks that depend on other blocks up the chain.
  - calibas 8y ago
    >What was the first linked-list? The initial 1955 implementation within the Information Processing Language. Come on, the history of computer science isn't exact esoteric knowledge so if you know so much about how blockchain is "supposed" to be defined it should be easy to find where they came from. And yes, every hash tree is a chain of blocks, nobody's arguing against that. The argument is whether or not blockchain should be defined so vaguely that it means the exact same thing as "hash tree", especially considering that blockchain is already in widespread use under a different definition. What you're doing is arguing semantics and asserting that mekle tree, hash tree, and blockchain so all mean the exact same thing. That's just going to confuse people even more...

calibas 8y ago

So what was the first blockchain? I think you're just rebelling against the common definition of a blockchain as a distributed ledger, though I don't understand what's to be gained from that. Seems the community is rather split about this...

pritambaral 8y ago
> So what was the first blockchain? Does it matter? What was the first linked-list? > I think you're just rebelling against I'm not "rebelling", I'm asserting. > the common definition of a blockchain as a distributed ledger That's a common application, not a definition; like blockchains and VCSes are common applications of merkle-trees, but not definition. > though I don't understand what's to be gained from that Nothing more that what's to be gained from asserting a linked-list is a list made of elements linking to each other. A blockchain is a chain made of blocks that depend on other blocks up the chain.
- calibas 8y ago
  >What was the first linked-list? The initial 1955 implementation within the Information Processing Language. Come on, the history of computer science isn't exact esoteric knowledge so if you know so much about how blockchain is "supposed" to be defined it should be easy to find where they came from. And yes, every hash tree is a chain of blocks, nobody's arguing against that. The argument is whether or not blockchain should be defined so vaguely that it means the exact same thing as "hash tree", especially considering that blockchain is already in widespread use under a different definition. What you're doing is arguing semantics and asserting that mekle tree, hash tree, and blockchain so all mean the exact same thing. That's just going to confuse people even more...