4 ms·

In addition to D. Richard Hipp's thoughts as HN user SQLite — author also of Fossil, so he oughtta know — I offer these: 1. Keep in mind that Fossil and Git ar

In addition to D. Richard Hipp's thoughts as HN user SQLite — author also of Fossil, so he oughtta know — I offer these: 1. Keep in mind that Fossil and Git are both applications of blockchain technology, which in this particular practical case means you must not only forge a single artifact's hash, you must also do it in a way that allows it to fit into the overall blockchain. 2. Fossil's sync protocol purposefully won't apply Dr. Hipp's hypothetical evil.c to an existing Fossil blockchain if presented it. Fossil will say, "I've already got that one, thanks," and move on. Only new or outdated clones could be so-fooled.

ajkjk 7y ago
> applications of blockchain technology Are we saying this now? More like blockchain is an application of git technology.
- seniorsassycat 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
  - SQLite 7y ago
    "blockchain" is self-descriptive, easier to pronounce (only two syllables instead of three), and easier to spell correctly. :-)
    - ajkjk 7y ago
      "blockchain technology" is a lot more syllables. Plus there's the downside of sounding like a loon.
- _jal 7y ago
  No. We are not. If you're looking for prior art, ZFS's application of Merkle trees predates both. I think there was some other public use before that, but I can't recall right now.