3 ms·

> 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 assertin

> 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...