4 ms·

I wish these authors would define exactly "which blockchain" they hate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain "A b

I wish these authors would define exactly "which blockchain" they hate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain "A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography." So, yeah, git and mercurial are "dangerous nonsense". But of course they're really talking about cryptocurrencies and smart contracts, right? So why not put that in the title?

mcv 5y ago
First time I've seen anyone call git and mercurial a blockchain.
- xeyownt 5y ago
  Yes, same. Probably some bad digestion ongoing.
- DrBazza 5y ago
  The basic definition of a blockchain covers the implementation of git. https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776 https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776 > Why is Git not considered a "block chain"? > .... > And this is what Git does, and hence Git is a blockchain, or works as one, if you prefer. > To close the circle, let's ask again: Why is Git not considered a “block chain”? It could be because many people, perhaps even a large majority, do not focus on the essence of a concept but on blinking accidents. I guess, as the question/answer implies, ultimately, it's personal opinion. I look at Git and other DVCSs implementations and see that they match the definition of blockchain. > A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leafs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain (and... 'see also Version Control' on the same page...)
  - mcv 5y ago
    Interesting. So the one useful application of blockchain technology is the one application that's not commonly called blockchain.
    - DrBazza 5y ago
      Perhaps? I think so, but I appreciate other people clearly have different (strong!) opinions on it. Coming from academia, I take the definition in the wiki page (I keep quoting, sorry), and for me, that neatly defines, most modern DVCSs.
mightyRodri 5y ago
Because only the crypto scams use blockchain for their marketing.
DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
If you want to be pedantic, git isn't a block-chain so much as a tree. But more importantly, git isn't what people usually think about when they hear block-chain. The irony is that it's probably a good example of how such systems can contribute value to society through decentralisation. Normally, when people hear "block-chain", they think of the bitcoin-flavoured public append-only ledger where forking and merging aren't a thing, conflicts get resolved via proof of work with some built-in cryptocurrency. Those are, almost exclusively, "dangerous nonsense"
- dbrgn 5y ago
  Bitcoin is a block-tree as well, you can have diverging branches. It's just that branches are usually very short-lived due to the incentives designed into the system.
paulgb 5y ago
Although the summery description would seem to apply to git and mercurial, the detailed description under “structure” lists a number of features not present in those, like a PoW/PoS consensus mechanism.
- mike_d 5y ago
  "Blockchain" is an append only ledger. It has nothing to do with proof of $foo. Certificate Transparency is a blockchain that your browser queries for every website you visit.
  - paulgb 5y ago
    We’re ultimately arguing semantics, but I think this is a pretty clear case where both conventional and academic usage of “blockchain” implies a consensus mechanism in addition to an append-only data structure. Certificate chains and Merkle trees existed long before the term blockchain was popularized.
    - mike_d 5y ago
      You are conflating definitions to dismiss an otherwise useful, and at this point foundational, technology. If you just don't like the name blockchain, we can call it Fluffernutterstructures.
quickthrower2 5y ago
Blockchains have blocks, with some distributed consensus mechanism to decide which chain of blocks is trusted most.
tsimionescu 5y ago
This is a problem of how exactly you define the word "blockchain" - you can meaningfully define it to I either include Git (as the first proposition on Wikipedia does) or to exclude it (e.g. by adding a consensus mechanism to the definition, which excludes Git but keeps Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ethereum PoS etc). The important thing is that the article is very clearly referencing the concept of a blockchain used as a permission-less DB, which Git clearly isn't. None of the arguments in the article apply to Git, and saying "Well, but Git is a block chain" would not make the article moot - the author at best needs to clarify that they are talking about a blockchain + consensus mechanism. I'd also note that Git and Hg predate the first use of the term "Block chain" (2011, according to Merriam-Webster) by 6 years, and their design was in turn inspired by even older systems. The Merkle tree or Hash tree data structure that underlies the design was invented in 1979, and also fits the definition of "block chain" on Wikipedia.

mcv 5y ago

First time I've seen anyone call git and mercurial a blockchain.

xeyownt 5y ago
Yes, same. Probably some bad digestion ongoing.
DrBazza 5y ago
The basic definition of a blockchain covers the implementation of git. https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776 https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776 > Why is Git not considered a "block chain"? > .... > And this is what Git does, and hence Git is a blockchain, or works as one, if you prefer. > To close the circle, let's ask again: Why is Git not considered a “block chain”? It could be because many people, perhaps even a large majority, do not focus on the essence of a concept but on blinking accidents. I guess, as the question/answer implies, ultimately, it's personal opinion. I look at Git and other DVCSs implementations and see that they match the definition of blockchain. > A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leafs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain (and... 'see also Version Control' on the same page...)
- mcv 5y ago
  Interesting. So the one useful application of blockchain technology is the one application that's not commonly called blockchain.
  - DrBazza 5y ago
    Perhaps? I think so, but I appreciate other people clearly have different (strong!) opinions on it. Coming from academia, I take the definition in the wiki page (I keep quoting, sorry), and for me, that neatly defines, most modern DVCSs.

mightyRodri 5y ago

Because only the crypto scams use blockchain for their marketing.

DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago

If you want to be pedantic, git isn't a block-chain so much as a tree. But more importantly, git isn't what people usually think about when they hear block-chain. The irony is that it's probably a good example of how such systems can contribute value to society through decentralisation. Normally, when people hear "block-chain", they think of the bitcoin-flavoured public append-only ledger where forking and merging aren't a thing, conflicts get resolved via proof of work with some built-in cryptocurrency. Those are, almost exclusively, "dangerous nonsense"

dbrgn 5y ago
Bitcoin is a block-tree as well, you can have diverging branches. It's just that branches are usually very short-lived due to the incentives designed into the system.

paulgb 5y ago

Although the summery description would seem to apply to git and mercurial, the detailed description under “structure” lists a number of features not present in those, like a PoW/PoS consensus mechanism.

mike_d 5y ago
"Blockchain" is an append only ledger. It has nothing to do with proof of $foo. Certificate Transparency is a blockchain that your browser queries for every website you visit.
- paulgb 5y ago
  We’re ultimately arguing semantics, but I think this is a pretty clear case where both conventional and academic usage of “blockchain” implies a consensus mechanism in addition to an append-only data structure. Certificate chains and Merkle trees existed long before the term blockchain was popularized.
  - mike_d 5y ago
    You are conflating definitions to dismiss an otherwise useful, and at this point foundational, technology. If you just don't like the name blockchain, we can call it Fluffernutterstructures.

quickthrower2 5y ago

Blockchains have blocks, with some distributed consensus mechanism to decide which chain of blocks is trusted most.

tsimionescu 5y ago

This is a problem of how exactly you define the word "blockchain" - you can meaningfully define it to I either include Git (as the first proposition on Wikipedia does) or to exclude it (e.g. by adding a consensus mechanism to the definition, which excludes Git but keeps Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ethereum PoS etc). The important thing is that the article is very clearly referencing the concept of a blockchain used as a permission-less DB, which Git clearly isn't. None of the arguments in the article apply to Git, and saying "Well, but Git is a block chain" would not make the article moot - the author at best needs to clarify that they are talking about a blockchain + consensus mechanism. I'd also note that Git and Hg predate the first use of the term "Block chain" (2011, according to Merriam-Webster) by 6 years, and their design was in turn inspired by even older systems. The Merkle tree or Hash tree data structure that underlies the design was invented in 1979, and also fits the definition of "block chain" on Wikipedia.