4 ms·

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.

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.