5 ms·

This seems wrong.... git is a form of blockchain. My use for a blockchain is for a system where even if I were the only writer, I would want there to be an ar

This seems wrong.... git is a form of blockchain. My use for a blockchain is for a system where even if I were the only writer, I would want there to be an archival, tamperproof record which anyone can verify. I publish a daily hash, which confirms everything behind it. I don't know of a better way to accomplish that than a simple blockchain, publishing daily SHA hashes. It is overhyped and oversold as a technology, but it has its uses. Perhaps they're not the same as the uses we have today, but they definitely exist. When radio was invented, the original planned use cases had little to do with what it was adopted for eventually.

klodolph 5y ago
I think the definition of "blockchain" should include some notion of distributed consensus. Git doesn't have that at all.
- woofie11 5y ago
  At present, the accepted definition doesn't. From Wikipedia: "A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). The timestamp proves that the transaction data existed when the block was published in order to get into its hash. As blocks each contain information about the block previous to it, they form a chain, with each additional block reinforcing the ones before it. Therefore, blockchains are resistant to modification of their data because once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks." Perhaps it ought to, but I would prefer a different word ("distributed ledger?"). For "blockchain," I actually rather like the simpler definition of a cryptographically-linked chain of blocks. This is contradicted by the popularly-believed inventor / date of invention.
  - Tialco 5y ago
    I think people use "permissionless blockchains" when they're referring to Nakamoto Consensus / Proof of Stake / whatever + Blockchain.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    Wikipedia is, at best, an imperfect attempt to record and explain the accepted definition. I think that Wikipedia's definition of blockchain does not match usage, and therefore it is in error and should be corrected.
    - schoen 5y ago
      Have you encountered common usage that calls git a blockchain, as opposed to a DVCS or Merkle tree?
      - klodolph 5y ago
        This comment thread is the first time I have ever heard Git called a blockchain, in my memory. I have been using Git heavily since about 2007.
- mekster 5y ago
  I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN when it comes to Bitcoin related but I'm only thinking because people post after missing the boat for the price action and want to belittle it out of emotion.
  - jraph 5y ago
    Come on, there are reasonable arguments against Bitcoin. I fail to understand if you are amazed by the low or the high quality of comments on Bitcoin on HN but if it is the latter, people post insightful things here because they are curious and look into things.
    - mekster 5y ago
      > git is a form of blockchain. Does this look like a valid argument? Where is the distributed consensus that is at the heart of blockchain? git will just cause conflicts leading to prejudiced manual intervention. I also don't see a great reason against its energy use as the nature of being fair is to make the competition as useless as possible or else it will be unfair for some people with financial incentives leading to unbalanced distributions in certain industry sectors. But at the cost of that, it doesn't put anyone as a dictator, which is worth more. (As the public agrees with its price action.) At least some miners are trying to use cleaner energies at this point, so it's an improvement.
      - jraph 5y ago
        I'm not speaking about a particular comment and responded to your generic assertion, "I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN". But okay, I'll answer to your question. >> git is a form of blockchain. > Does this look like a valid argument? It looks like a claim you don't agree with. I don't agree with it neither but I can see where the OP is coming from and I see no bad intent. I found their comment very reasonable and well-balanced even if I disagree. You seem to see it as an attack against Bitcoin, and you seem to be the one who is involved emotionally into this topic. By the way, notice how we were speaking about blockchains in general and not Bitcoin, you introduced Bitcoin (though I agree that Bitcoin is the elephant in the room when speaking about blockchains). > I also don't see a great reason against its energy use I intentionally and specifically did not enter this discussion by not giving any argument. This is boring, there are a lot of detailed discussions about this here on HN already.
jraph 5y ago
But this is not what we really call a blockchain usually. A blockchain has all the proof of work / of stake fluff around it. The mechanism behind git is most probably what most people seeking to use a blockchain actually need though, for the reasons you gave.
Trasmatta 5y ago
Git isn't a blockchain...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Tialco 5y ago
Yeah agreed. The key distinction where much of it turns to fluff is around decentralized & permissionless models. Relying on Nakamoto Consensus/Proof of Work/Proof of stake when you can just as easily rely on a centralized model is where the BS starts happening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spiderice 5y ago
You are being misleading by intentionally changing the definition of the word "blockchain". Everyone here knows the difference between Git and what people mean when they say blockchain. You're just conflating the two, using your new definition to create a straw man, and then attacking the straw man.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lottin 5y ago
A blockchain is a distributed, append-only database with a "consensus mechanism" which dictates who gets to append new information to the database. So far, all the consensus mechanisms that I know of employ a game of chance to select who gets to append the data.
- babelchips 5y ago
  Then you haven’t heard of Hedera Hashgraph. Concensus with finality. No mining. https://www.hedera.com/learning/what-is-hashgraph-consensus https://www.hedera.com/learning/what-is-hashgraph-consensus
  - schoen 5y ago
    https://hedera.com/network-nodes https://hedera.com/network-nodes > Consensus nodes receive transactions, work together to determine consensus using hashgraph, and store the public ledger's latest state. The Hedera Governing Council currently runs all mainnet consensus nodes. As Hedera advances on its path to decentralization, anyone will be able run a consensus node. https://hedera.com/hh-decentralization-of-consensus.pdf https://hedera.com/hh-decentralization-of-consensus.pdf > Hedera Hashgraph is a proof-of-stake network that aims to use permissionless nodes and a widespread coin distribution to ensure the network’s security while working to achieve complete decentralization. > Hbar cryptocurrency represents the “stake” of voting power in Hedera’s proof-of-stake consensus model – more coins equal more voting power over consensus. Thus, to ensure the network’s security, hbars need to be widely distributed so no attacker or group of attackers can amass control over one-third of the coins. > Until hbars are sufficiently distributed, Hedera will remain a permissioned network. To maintain the security of the network, the network will remain permissioned until the total value of all the circulating coins is high enough to be too expensive for a malicious user (or group of users) to buy one-third of the total supply to conduct an attack. Whatever other good points their technology has on its efficiency and not using proof-of-work, their web site shows that (1) right now the network is centralized and consensus is operated by the original developers and people they've personally approved, (2) their path to eventual decentralization is reliant on their own judgments about the size and value of the network. The consensus part doesn't reflect an improvement on the status quo from the point of view of decentralization, in that all they've claimed is that, some day, when their network is big and valuable enough, they can allow it to decentralize because attacks will then become unreasonably expensive. We might all be better off if a mechanism like this had already caught on to a huge extent instead of Bitcoin. But I don't see a particular innovation here for securing decentralized consensus relative to other proof-of-stake systems.

klodolph 5y ago

I think the definition of "blockchain" should include some notion of distributed consensus. Git doesn't have that at all.

woofie11 5y ago
At present, the accepted definition doesn't. From Wikipedia: "A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). The timestamp proves that the transaction data existed when the block was published in order to get into its hash. As blocks each contain information about the block previous to it, they form a chain, with each additional block reinforcing the ones before it. Therefore, blockchains are resistant to modification of their data because once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks." Perhaps it ought to, but I would prefer a different word ("distributed ledger?"). For "blockchain," I actually rather like the simpler definition of a cryptographically-linked chain of blocks. This is contradicted by the popularly-believed inventor / date of invention.
- Tialco 5y ago
  I think people use "permissionless blockchains" when they're referring to Nakamoto Consensus / Proof of Stake / whatever + Blockchain.
- klodolph 5y ago
  Wikipedia is, at best, an imperfect attempt to record and explain the accepted definition. I think that Wikipedia's definition of blockchain does not match usage, and therefore it is in error and should be corrected.
  - schoen 5y ago
    Have you encountered common usage that calls git a blockchain, as opposed to a DVCS or Merkle tree?
    - klodolph 5y ago
      This comment thread is the first time I have ever heard Git called a blockchain, in my memory. I have been using Git heavily since about 2007.
mekster 5y ago
I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN when it comes to Bitcoin related but I'm only thinking because people post after missing the boat for the price action and want to belittle it out of emotion.
- jraph 5y ago
  Come on, there are reasonable arguments against Bitcoin. I fail to understand if you are amazed by the low or the high quality of comments on Bitcoin on HN but if it is the latter, people post insightful things here because they are curious and look into things.
  - mekster 5y ago
    > git is a form of blockchain. Does this look like a valid argument? Where is the distributed consensus that is at the heart of blockchain? git will just cause conflicts leading to prejudiced manual intervention. I also don't see a great reason against its energy use as the nature of being fair is to make the competition as useless as possible or else it will be unfair for some people with financial incentives leading to unbalanced distributions in certain industry sectors. But at the cost of that, it doesn't put anyone as a dictator, which is worth more. (As the public agrees with its price action.) At least some miners are trying to use cleaner energies at this point, so it's an improvement.
    - jraph 5y ago
      I'm not speaking about a particular comment and responded to your generic assertion, "I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN". But okay, I'll answer to your question. >> git is a form of blockchain. > Does this look like a valid argument? It looks like a claim you don't agree with. I don't agree with it neither but I can see where the OP is coming from and I see no bad intent. I found their comment very reasonable and well-balanced even if I disagree. You seem to see it as an attack against Bitcoin, and you seem to be the one who is involved emotionally into this topic. By the way, notice how we were speaking about blockchains in general and not Bitcoin, you introduced Bitcoin (though I agree that Bitcoin is the elephant in the room when speaking about blockchains). > I also don't see a great reason against its energy use I intentionally and specifically did not enter this discussion by not giving any argument. This is boring, there are a lot of detailed discussions about this here on HN already.

jraph 5y ago

But this is not what we really call a blockchain usually. A blockchain has all the proof of work / of stake fluff around it. The mechanism behind git is most probably what most people seeking to use a blockchain actually need though, for the reasons you gave.

Trasmatta 5y ago

Git isn't a blockchain...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Tialco 5y ago

Yeah agreed. The key distinction where much of it turns to fluff is around decentralized & permissionless models. Relying on Nakamoto Consensus/Proof of Work/Proof of stake when you can just as easily rely on a centralized model is where the BS starts happening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spiderice 5y ago

You are being misleading by intentionally changing the definition of the word "blockchain". Everyone here knows the difference between Git and what people mean when they say blockchain. You're just conflating the two, using your new definition to create a straw man, and then attacking the straw man.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lottin 5y ago

A blockchain is a distributed, append-only database with a "consensus mechanism" which dictates who gets to append new information to the database. So far, all the consensus mechanisms that I know of employ a game of chance to select who gets to append the data.

babelchips 5y ago
Then you haven’t heard of Hedera Hashgraph. Concensus with finality. No mining. https://www.hedera.com/learning/what-is-hashgraph-consensus https://www.hedera.com/learning/what-is-hashgraph-consensus
- schoen 5y ago
  https://hedera.com/network-nodes https://hedera.com/network-nodes > Consensus nodes receive transactions, work together to determine consensus using hashgraph, and store the public ledger's latest state. The Hedera Governing Council currently runs all mainnet consensus nodes. As Hedera advances on its path to decentralization, anyone will be able run a consensus node. https://hedera.com/hh-decentralization-of-consensus.pdf https://hedera.com/hh-decentralization-of-consensus.pdf > Hedera Hashgraph is a proof-of-stake network that aims to use permissionless nodes and a widespread coin distribution to ensure the network’s security while working to achieve complete decentralization. > Hbar cryptocurrency represents the “stake” of voting power in Hedera’s proof-of-stake consensus model – more coins equal more voting power over consensus. Thus, to ensure the network’s security, hbars need to be widely distributed so no attacker or group of attackers can amass control over one-third of the coins. > Until hbars are sufficiently distributed, Hedera will remain a permissioned network. To maintain the security of the network, the network will remain permissioned until the total value of all the circulating coins is high enough to be too expensive for a malicious user (or group of users) to buy one-third of the total supply to conduct an attack. Whatever other good points their technology has on its efficiency and not using proof-of-work, their web site shows that (1) right now the network is centralized and consensus is operated by the original developers and people they've personally approved, (2) their path to eventual decentralization is reliant on their own judgments about the size and value of the network. The consensus part doesn't reflect an improvement on the status quo from the point of view of decentralization, in that all they've claimed is that, some day, when their network is big and valuable enough, they can allow it to decentralize because attacks will then become unreasonably expensive. We might all be better off if a mechanism like this had already caught on to a huge extent instead of Bitcoin. But I don't see a particular innovation here for securing decentralized consensus relative to other proof-of-stake systems.