7 ms·

A stable battle tested database isn’t cool anymore, this is 2020, Jim. /s Jokes aside, I would rather see a working proof of concept 'Blockchain Wikipedia' bei

A stable battle tested database isn’t cool anymore, this is 2020, Jim. /s Jokes aside, I would rather see a working proof of concept 'Blockchain Wikipedia' being made from this crowd rather than have them shout suggestive buzzwords at Jimmy Wales. That being said, I wonder if Linus is open to making Git commits work on the bitcoin blockchain, might have to ask him someday.

mrb 7y ago
Actually, Git is technically a blockchain. Commit hashes are a hash of the previous commit hash + new data. The structure (history) is replicated in a decentralized way on every user's node. The only missing thing is a proof-of-work, but that is optional in the definition of a blockchain.
- benaadams 7y ago
  Well the commits are proof-of-work; though the validation is done by human (assuming the user doesn't have commit access on the main branch) However its more of a Merkle tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree; which blockchain is also.
- jakear 7y ago
  Proof of work is just some mechanism for a 3rd party to verify you actually invested “value” into the chain. That’s a PR. Are there any traditional block chains where the proof of work is actually an investment into the chain? Such that the structure of the chain represents something of actual value (not a series of rare hashes), and additions to the chain add to that value? A la git. One potential example would be neural networks on a chain, where the work is training the network, and the value is intrinsic in the well-fitted resultant model.
  - trevelyan 7y ago
    Saito (saito.tech) pays for routing work rather than hashing work. Requires solution to 50 percent attack but means that all fees pay for the work of running the network rather than unrelated activities like hashing or staking.
  - PinguTS 7y ago
    There is one in industrial protocols for functional safety. It is called Ethercat Safety.
- ptx 7y ago
  Although Git also uses a chain of hashes, just like a blockchain, I'm not sure using this definition of blockchain (i.e. optional consensus protocol) is very useful, because then we need another word for the kind of thing that Bitcoin is. (On the other hand, perhaps the uselessness of the definition suits the uselessness of the concept itself.) If Git is like using a hammer to hammer nails, blockchain (with consensus protocol) enables you to write without a pen by using the hammer to hit your thumb until it bleeds. And Wikipedia already has a pen that works.
  - neilalexander 7y ago
    > I'm not sure using this definition of blockchain (i.e. optional consensus protocol) is very useful Honestly, "blockchain" as a word feels ill-defined and badly understood at the best of times. You could argue that "blockchain" deconstructs to nothing more than a "chain" of "blocks". What "blocks" actually are is up to the imagination, proof-of-work or other algorithms aside. I get frustrated when people hail "blockchains" as the solution to everything because the term is so vague in everyday use that it's effectively meaningless.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I always thought it was clear: it was the combination of Merkle chains with a proof of investment (work, stake, etc), since that combination was the real novelty, worthy of a new name. It was quite confusing to see people calling "blockchain" to one of the pre-existing concepts. It's like calling any wheel a "bicycle".
  - dboreham 7y ago
    Hashlinked, content-addressed, etc.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
  > Actually, Git is technically a blockchain. No. You can say that git reduces to a Merkle tree. And blockchains use Merkle trees. But you can't say that git is a blockchain. https://gist.github.com/joepie91/e49d2bdc9dfec4adc9da8a8434fd029b https://gist.github.com/joepie91/e49d2bdc9dfec4adc9da8a8434f... https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/07/chronicle-will-make-you-question-need-for-blockchain-technology https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/07/chronicle-will-make-you-q...
  - bob1029 7y ago
    I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm) is the most important quality of a blockchain. To say that git is technically a blockchain is not entirely inaccurate IMO. I think you are looking for the other qualities that typically apply to a blockchain such as the implicit need to "mine" its resources. Git simply produces these resources incidentally. I think this is the only major difference.
    - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
      > I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm) A Merkle tree is not a recursive signature algorithm, because a hash function is not a signature algorithm. https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-password-cryptography-decoded https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-pass... (Yes, you can build signature algorithms out of hash functions, but definitions matter.)
    - meowface 7y ago
      It's still missing important pieces. They both fall under the superset of "hash chain" / Merkle tree, but cryptocurrency blockchains are designed to deal with the possibility of bad actors. Git can't ensure trust, unless you PGP sign commits. Git + PGP + some computationally expensive mechanism to broadcast verified PGP key attributions + a consensus algorithm might be a little bit like a blockchain, but I can't think of a good use case for that. Git repos generally aren't intended to be pushed to by the whole world.
      - 7y ago
- phire 7y ago
  There are no blocks, just bare commits. There is no chain, it's a DAG.
- runeks 7y ago
  No, it’s not. The two technologies solve two different problems. A blockchain is basically a single, global Git repository, where each commit is a “block” and the data inside that block/“commit” are transactions. The defining difference between Git and a blockchain is that blockchains define which branch (commit history) is the correct one — the branch that you should put your commit on top of. Blockchain provides a means to arrive at a consensus on which commit history (branch) is correct, while Git does not.
neilalexander 7y ago
> making Git commits work on the bitcoin blockchain What does this even mean?
- mamon 7y ago
  That every Git commit would take few hours and cost you transaction fee in Bitcoins.
  - joshschreuder 7y ago
    At least you have a good excuse to abandon your pet open source projects
  - hallihax 7y ago
    On the plus side, the whole world gets to reject your terrible commits?
- tclancy 7y ago
  The lights would go out in a few weeks.
ghoshbishakh 7y ago
I think we should read about blockchains and understand it first. Then only we can actually decide whether it can actually be helpful for a particular problem. A general rule of thumb is: Don't use blockchain if a database maintained by a single organization (person / company / government ) is sufficient. If multiple people interact, or multiple organizations interact and together want to maintain some data where they all collaborate and take decisions on how the data is changed then only we need blockchain. So when I think about it, wiki can definitely be helped by blockchains.
- Tomte 7y ago
  No. "Multiple entities interact" may be a necessary condition for using a blockchain, but it's certainly far from a sufficient condition.
  - ghoshbishakh 7y ago
    Agreed. The sufficient condition is you cannot blindly trust all those entities.
    - Tomte 7y ago
      That's still far from sufficient. Existing businesses have coped with that for hundreds of years. You can have joint-ventures, where all participants send emissaries to, you can negotiate rights to view the books or other ways to create transparency. You can have contracts, backed by a legal system and state courts. You can do many things. Blockchains are only one of those possibilities. Most important question when somebody tries to sell you a blockchain: "What's the traditional way to do it?" Correct answer: "People usually do X, but our blockchain proposal has advantages Y and Z." Incorrect answer: "Nobody has ever solved that problem before!"
  - twrx3 7y ago
    Yes, only when they cannot trust each other.
- sweeneyrod 7y ago
somesortofsystm 7y ago
> 'Blockchain Wikipedia' I mean, isn't this basically just Hugo and IPFS behind a Brand?
- dsr_ 7y ago
  Yes, but much slower and more expensive.
  - tclancy 7y ago
    You forgot environmentally damaging.
raghavtoshniwal 7y ago
Off topic but it is considered difficult for NLP models to do sarcasm detection (because it’s a really hard problem, no widely available datasets, some context awareness is required, etc.) For better or worse, in the last few years we have been generating a dataset on social forums by using “/s” at the end of sarcastic statements. I’ll try and mine the “/s” statements on HN at least and see if I get somewhere.
- duckmysick 7y ago
  Humans have problems detecting written sarcasm. Not surprising that NLP models struggle with it too. It's difficult because even if you have the context, the original poster can change classification after being called out by replying "oh, I was just kidding/I was being sarcastic". The same comment may and may not be sarcastic at the same time, Schrödinger's cat style. That being said, it's an interesting problem. Hope you find something good.
- tveita 7y ago
  There is some prior art for this https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05579 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05579
- skrebbel 7y ago
  That's going to be a great data set! Most people who use "/s" are great at sarcasm.
rwiggum 7y ago
"Blockchain Wikipedia" exists and the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, was involved for a while. It's called Everipedia and it uses the EOS blockchain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia

mrb 7y ago

Actually, Git is technically a blockchain. Commit hashes are a hash of the previous commit hash + new data. The structure (history) is replicated in a decentralized way on every user's node. The only missing thing is a proof-of-work, but that is optional in the definition of a blockchain.

benaadams 7y ago
Well the commits are proof-of-work; though the validation is done by human (assuming the user doesn't have commit access on the main branch) However its more of a Merkle tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree; which blockchain is also.
jakear 7y ago
Proof of work is just some mechanism for a 3rd party to verify you actually invested “value” into the chain. That’s a PR. Are there any traditional block chains where the proof of work is actually an investment into the chain? Such that the structure of the chain represents something of actual value (not a series of rare hashes), and additions to the chain add to that value? A la git. One potential example would be neural networks on a chain, where the work is training the network, and the value is intrinsic in the well-fitted resultant model.
- trevelyan 7y ago
  Saito (saito.tech) pays for routing work rather than hashing work. Requires solution to 50 percent attack but means that all fees pay for the work of running the network rather than unrelated activities like hashing or staking.
- PinguTS 7y ago
  There is one in industrial protocols for functional safety. It is called Ethercat Safety.
ptx 7y ago
Although Git also uses a chain of hashes, just like a blockchain, I'm not sure using this definition of blockchain (i.e. optional consensus protocol) is very useful, because then we need another word for the kind of thing that Bitcoin is. (On the other hand, perhaps the uselessness of the definition suits the uselessness of the concept itself.) If Git is like using a hammer to hammer nails, blockchain (with consensus protocol) enables you to write without a pen by using the hammer to hit your thumb until it bleeds. And Wikipedia already has a pen that works.
- neilalexander 7y ago
  > I'm not sure using this definition of blockchain (i.e. optional consensus protocol) is very useful Honestly, "blockchain" as a word feels ill-defined and badly understood at the best of times. You could argue that "blockchain" deconstructs to nothing more than a "chain" of "blocks". What "blocks" actually are is up to the imagination, proof-of-work or other algorithms aside. I get frustrated when people hail "blockchains" as the solution to everything because the term is so vague in everyday use that it's effectively meaningless.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I always thought it was clear: it was the combination of Merkle chains with a proof of investment (work, stake, etc), since that combination was the real novelty, worthy of a new name. It was quite confusing to see people calling "blockchain" to one of the pre-existing concepts. It's like calling any wheel a "bicycle".
- dboreham 7y ago
  Hashlinked, content-addressed, etc.
CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
> Actually, Git is technically a blockchain. No. You can say that git reduces to a Merkle tree. And blockchains use Merkle trees. But you can't say that git is a blockchain. https://gist.github.com/joepie91/e49d2bdc9dfec4adc9da8a8434fd029b https://gist.github.com/joepie91/e49d2bdc9dfec4adc9da8a8434f... https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/07/chronicle-will-make-you-question-need-for-blockchain-technology https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/07/chronicle-will-make-you-q...
- bob1029 7y ago
  I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm) is the most important quality of a blockchain. To say that git is technically a blockchain is not entirely inaccurate IMO. I think you are looking for the other qualities that typically apply to a blockchain such as the implicit need to "mine" its resources. Git simply produces these resources incidentally. I think this is the only major difference.
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    > I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm) A Merkle tree is not a recursive signature algorithm, because a hash function is not a signature algorithm. https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-password-cryptography-decoded https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-pass... (Yes, you can build signature algorithms out of hash functions, but definitions matter.)
  - meowface 7y ago
    It's still missing important pieces. They both fall under the superset of "hash chain" / Merkle tree, but cryptocurrency blockchains are designed to deal with the possibility of bad actors. Git can't ensure trust, unless you PGP sign commits. Git + PGP + some computationally expensive mechanism to broadcast verified PGP key attributions + a consensus algorithm might be a little bit like a blockchain, but I can't think of a good use case for that. Git repos generally aren't intended to be pushed to by the whole world.
    - 7y ago
phire 7y ago
There are no blocks, just bare commits. There is no chain, it's a DAG.
runeks 7y ago
No, it’s not. The two technologies solve two different problems. A blockchain is basically a single, global Git repository, where each commit is a “block” and the data inside that block/“commit” are transactions. The defining difference between Git and a blockchain is that blockchains define which branch (commit history) is the correct one — the branch that you should put your commit on top of. Blockchain provides a means to arrive at a consensus on which commit history (branch) is correct, while Git does not.

neilalexander 7y ago

> making Git commits work on the bitcoin blockchain What does this even mean?

mamon 7y ago
That every Git commit would take few hours and cost you transaction fee in Bitcoins.
- joshschreuder 7y ago
  At least you have a good excuse to abandon your pet open source projects
- hallihax 7y ago
  On the plus side, the whole world gets to reject your terrible commits?
tclancy 7y ago
The lights would go out in a few weeks.

ghoshbishakh 7y ago

I think we should read about blockchains and understand it first. Then only we can actually decide whether it can actually be helpful for a particular problem. A general rule of thumb is: Don't use blockchain if a database maintained by a single organization (person / company / government ) is sufficient. If multiple people interact, or multiple organizations interact and together want to maintain some data where they all collaborate and take decisions on how the data is changed then only we need blockchain. So when I think about it, wiki can definitely be helped by blockchains.

Tomte 7y ago
No. "Multiple entities interact" may be a necessary condition for using a blockchain, but it's certainly far from a sufficient condition.
- ghoshbishakh 7y ago
  Agreed. The sufficient condition is you cannot blindly trust all those entities.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    That's still far from sufficient. Existing businesses have coped with that for hundreds of years. You can have joint-ventures, where all participants send emissaries to, you can negotiate rights to view the books or other ways to create transparency. You can have contracts, backed by a legal system and state courts. You can do many things. Blockchains are only one of those possibilities. Most important question when somebody tries to sell you a blockchain: "What's the traditional way to do it?" Correct answer: "People usually do X, but our blockchain proposal has advantages Y and Z." Incorrect answer: "Nobody has ever solved that problem before!"
- twrx3 7y ago
  Yes, only when they cannot trust each other.
sweeneyrod 7y ago

somesortofsystm 7y ago

> 'Blockchain Wikipedia' I mean, isn't this basically just Hugo and IPFS behind a Brand?

dsr_ 7y ago
Yes, but much slower and more expensive.
- tclancy 7y ago
  You forgot environmentally damaging.

raghavtoshniwal 7y ago

Off topic but it is considered difficult for NLP models to do sarcasm detection (because it’s a really hard problem, no widely available datasets, some context awareness is required, etc.) For better or worse, in the last few years we have been generating a dataset on social forums by using “/s” at the end of sarcastic statements. I’ll try and mine the “/s” statements on HN at least and see if I get somewhere.

duckmysick 7y ago
Humans have problems detecting written sarcasm. Not surprising that NLP models struggle with it too. It's difficult because even if you have the context, the original poster can change classification after being called out by replying "oh, I was just kidding/I was being sarcastic". The same comment may and may not be sarcastic at the same time, Schrödinger's cat style. That being said, it's an interesting problem. Hope you find something good.
tveita 7y ago
There is some prior art for this https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05579 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05579
skrebbel 7y ago
That's going to be a great data set! Most people who use "/s" are great at sarcasm.

rwiggum 7y ago

"Blockchain Wikipedia" exists and the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, was involved for a while. It's called Everipedia and it uses the EOS blockchain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia