5 ms·

Funny how 90% of the commenters seem to totally miss parent's point. We get why a pegged digital currency is useful, just not why it has to be a "blockchain".

Funny how 90% of the commenters seem to totally miss parent's point. We get why a pegged digital currency is useful, just not why it has to be a "blockchain". A pegged "cryptocurrency" can just be designed as a centralized service (e.g. a REST API backed by a traditional database) without losing any of its properties. The "crypto" and "blockchain" bits are marketing. A good rule of thumb is this: could someone have come up with this pre-Bitcoin? If the answer is yes, it's not a (decentralized) cryptocurrency.

stale2002 7y ago
A "Blockchain" is merely a public database. That's it. Git is a Blockchain. Do you think that git is useless?
- olalonde 7y ago
  Well that's precisely what I have issue with. No I don't think a "blockchain" is merely a public database nor that git is a "blockchain". The term "blockchain" was initially defined as the proof-of-work data structure that Bitcoin uses to store transactions and its definition was later slightly expanded to describe that same data structure used in other cryptocurrencies. If it now just means "public database" then we've lost a useful word. > Git is a Blockchain. Do you think that git is useless? Git also uses merkle trees but the similarity pretty much ends there.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    Proof of work is merely one form of consensus algorithms. There are many forms of consensus algorithms. > Git also uses merkle trees Blockchains are not a complicated concept. They are merely a merkle tree combined with a consensus algorithm. That's it. People try to make these concepts way more complicated than they actually are. A lot of this crypto stuff is actually quite simple.
    - olalonde 7y ago
      It was the only one at the time. Since then a few alternatives have been proposed but none that rival PoW, at least in terms of security. > Blockchains are not a complicated concept. They are merely a merkle tree combined with a consensus algorithm. That's it. I wouldn't say so, the block chain is a chain, not a tree. Actually, the use of merkle trees to represent transaction data is an implementation detail. Bitcoin would have worked fine without them (though "lightweight" clients would have suffered a bit). I second that it's a simple concept though.

stale2002 7y ago

A "Blockchain" is merely a public database. That's it. Git is a Blockchain. Do you think that git is useless?

olalonde 7y ago
Well that's precisely what I have issue with. No I don't think a "blockchain" is merely a public database nor that git is a "blockchain". The term "blockchain" was initially defined as the proof-of-work data structure that Bitcoin uses to store transactions and its definition was later slightly expanded to describe that same data structure used in other cryptocurrencies. If it now just means "public database" then we've lost a useful word. > Git is a Blockchain. Do you think that git is useless? Git also uses merkle trees but the similarity pretty much ends there.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Proof of work is merely one form of consensus algorithms. There are many forms of consensus algorithms. > Git also uses merkle trees Blockchains are not a complicated concept. They are merely a merkle tree combined with a consensus algorithm. That's it. People try to make these concepts way more complicated than they actually are. A lot of this crypto stuff is actually quite simple.
  - olalonde 7y ago
    It was the only one at the time. Since then a few alternatives have been proposed but none that rival PoW, at least in terms of security. > Blockchains are not a complicated concept. They are merely a merkle tree combined with a consensus algorithm. That's it. I wouldn't say so, the block chain is a chain, not a tree. Actually, the use of merkle trees to represent transaction data is an implementation detail. Bitcoin would have worked fine without them (though "lightweight" clients would have suffered a bit). I second that it's a simple concept though.