3 ms·

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.