2 ms·
Git (and any merkle tree) already implements a tamper proof linked list, there’s no reason to burn electricity in a proof of work algorithm to accomplish this.
by ninkendo 4y ago
Git (and any merkle tree) already implements a tamper proof linked list, there’s no reason to burn electricity in a proof of work algorithm to accomplish this.
Controlling who gets to put things in it in a decentralized way isn’t as important as many people think, at the end of the day almost all applications (other than currency) can just use a central authority to publish hashes.
- chclt 4y ago> Git (and any merkle tree) already implements a tamper proof linked list, there’s no reason to burn electricity in a proof of work algorithm to accomplish this. Thats why the word "and" is there in my sentence
- midmagico 4y agoPardon me while I git push -f..
- ninkendo 4y agoYou should probably reread git’s documentation if you think git push -f rewrites any commits. It doesn’t. It makes new commits and re-assigns the named branch to track the new commits you just pushed. It rewrites branch names, not commits. It is impossible (without finding a SHA collision) to rewrite a commit in git. And before you say “yeah but how do you know which SHA sums are the right one if you don’t trust branch names”, please reread the final paragraph of the post you replied to.