3 ms·
But git also doesn't solve a distributed consensus problem. The problem of reaching consensus on the official HEAD commit is externalized to traditional PKI met
by ulrikrasmussen 7y ago
But git also doesn't solve a distributed consensus problem. The problem of reaching consensus on the official HEAD commit is externalized to traditional PKI methods, e.g. GitHub.
- zaarn 7y agoWell, no, the consensus of a git repo depends on who use it. For example, on Linux the true HEAD is where Linus says it is. Everyone else is wrong. That's a consensus of everyone working on Linux. In more distributed projects, HEAD is where everyone agrees HEAD should be. Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus.
- chii 7y ago> Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus. Not if you want a trustless system. Otherwise, why waste time/energy? A bank can currently perform the "human consensus" part already (ala credit cards and fiat money).
- zaarn 7y agoYou can clone democracy if you want trustless.
- paulmd 7y ago> Human consensus is a valid form of blockchain consensus. No, Linus is a form of an oracle here. Linus says the head is X therefore it is. (oracles are fine! we could also just call them "authorities"! having an authority at the head of a project is fine! but it's not really blockchain.)
- zaarn 7y agoI would disagree that is not really blockchain, Linus is a form of consensus for the git blockchain of the Linux project, I see no issue in that.