> It seems to me that block chains will win at the things they are good for a bit the way git won at version control: decentralised systems just require lower o

> It seems to me that block chains will win at the things they are good for a bit the way git won at version control: decentralised systems just require lower overheads and less barrier to entry in general, so people just automatically use them. Git really only had an inflection point of adoption when Github came out and offered a really compelling centralized service. Before Github, there wasn't a huge drive to move away from SVN (there was some but it was more because the new decentralized ones were better in other ways besides being decentralized and fixed some annoying bugs that SVN had) and it was much less certain that git would win out over mercurial or bazaar or one of the others. My experience at the time was also that the decentralized nature of git/hg/etc was arguably a barrier to their adoption. Existing teams were used to a workflow with a central repository and it wasn't clear how you would replace that with these decentralized tools. You had to do a lot of work to come up with a new workflow for your team or you made a central server somewhere and tried to make them work as similarly as possible to a centralized system. I remember a lot of pushback on moving to git from people who didn't understand the whole decentralized thing and found it more confusing than what they were used to. And with Github, that seems to be the approach that the vast majority of the world has gone with. Yeah, you can use git as a fully decentralized tool and there are people who prefer that to using Github, but that's pretty uncommon compared to how many teams just centralize with Github.