Please share a source! I can’t find anything as robust as a whitepaper (the bitcoin whitepaper doesn’t use the term).
NIST informally defines it as:
A distributed digital ledger of cryptographically-signed transactions that are grouped into blocks. Each block is cryptographically linked to the previous one (making it tamper evident) after validation and undergoing a consensus decision. As new blocks are added, older blocks become more difficult to modify (creating tamper resistance). New blocks are replicated across copies of the ledger within the network, and any conflicts are resolved automatically using established rules.
Which git certainly meets this.
IBM informally defines it as:
Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding).
Oh a 3rd definition, that definitely hurts the case that blockchain is vague ill defined term. If it were a well-defined term, there would be whitepapers defining it like merkle trees or bitcoin. Blockchain is just a marketing term defined by businesses, not scientists or engineers and thus is vague and variable.
I also don’t think your definition is a very good definition. Do you think git fundamentally changes when it moves from sha1 to sha256? Or are you referring to the fact that the payloads of cryptocurrency’s blockchain is required to be signed (just like you can optionally require git commits to be signed)? I don’t think that’s fundamental to blockchain either.
Only cryptographicly valid changes are allowed to blockchain state. All data can be modified in git.
No. You can’t modify the chain in git. Each commit is an immutable snapshot of the repository. To change history you have to create a new hash and then broadcast that to everyone that they should stop using the old one. Depending in how your network is setup you may onky have to convince a centralized server, or you might have to convince 51% of the actors on your network or you may just choose to only form a network that agrees with you. You could alter bitcoin’s blockchain too, but you’d need 51% of the network to agree with you.
Oh a 3rd definition, that definitely hurts the case that blockchain is vague ill defined term.
The phrases used to describe the technology to the public may change, but the technolgical approach doesn’t
If it were a well-defined term, there would be whitepapers defining it like merkle trees or bitcoin.
There are hundreds of blockchain whitepapers, all of which link blocks of data via hash functions and only accept state changes if they are valid and cryptographicaly signed.
Blockchain is just a marketing term defined by businesses, not scientists or engineers and thus is vague and variable.
If we were discussing web3 or Metaverse then you may have a point. But no-one in tech is confused about what blockchain is anymore.
Do you think git fundamentally changes when it moves from sha1 to sha256?
No.
Or are you referring to the fact that the payloads of cryptocurrency’s blockchain is required to be signed
Yes. Exactly this.
(just like you can optionally require git commits to be signed)?
Optionally is the key word. Blockchain transactions must be signed, and they must be accepted as following the blockchain rules by validators.
I don’t think that’s fundamental to blockchain either.
Find me a blockchain that doesn’t require signed transactions to make state changes.
No. You can’t modify the chain in git.
I didn’t say anything about modify the chain.
Each commit is an immutable snapshot of the repository.
A commit can contain any data it likes. A commit to a blockchain is highly restricted. Only cryptographicly valid rule following changes are allowed to blockchain state.
Optionally is the key word. Blockchain transactions must be signed, and they must be accepted as following the blockchain rules by validators.
But this is just a policy decision, not a property of the technology. You can easily implement a script that checks if every commit from remotes are signed, accepts them if they are and drops them if they aren’t or the signature is invalid.
If you contribute to a project where the majority require signed commits, then you need to sign commits in order for your change to be integrated into the consensus.
That has nothing to do with the technology itself, just with the application.
So if you state that signatures are required to be a blockchain, then you can use git to create a blockchain, by just having that policy.
(IMO I wouldn’t say that signatures are required, just that blockchains usually have them.)
You can easily implement a script that checks if every commit from remotes are signed, accepts them if they are and drops them if they aren’t or the signature is invalid.
Now add some logic to check whether the actual data is valid (i.e. bob has enough coins in his account to send to Charlie).
Make some incentive to ensure only the main branch survives and forks are either eliminated or merged.
Automate
Now git replicates blockchain’s functionality.
So if you state that signatures are required to be a blockchain, then you can use git to create a blockchain, by just having that policy.
Yes, but add automatically processing the content of the commit for validity and incentives to reduce the number of forks.
(IMO I wouldn’t say that signatures are required, just that blockchains usually have them.)
Without public key cryptography you just have a hash linked list (like Git).
Again, find the difference. Each block(commit object) has its content(blobs and trees) and metadata like parent blocks(commit objects), time(and message). So one commit corresponds only to one history.
Still haven’t found it. You suddenly started talking about consensus protocol. Bitcoin blockchain branches too, but consensus protocol sets last block(HEAD in git) to block with longest history.
How does it “certainly meet it”? There is no consensus mechanism in git, new blocks are not replicated across the network, there is no network at all, git works offline. You can replicate changes with remotes but there is no “git network” in any similar sense. And conflicts are definitely not resolved automatically. And the git hashes are certainly not cryptographic.
That’s 4 ways it doesn’t meet the definition. You could maybe stretch the meaning of a network to make it 3.
Please share a source! I can’t find anything as robust as a whitepaper (the bitcoin whitepaper doesn’t use the term).
NIST informally defines it as:
Which git certainly meets this.
IBM informally defines it as:
Which git meets.
Git is hash linked, not cryptographicly linked. Only cryptographicly valid changes are allowed to blockchain state. All data can be modified in git.
Yes. IBMs definition is bad and could equally apply to git. They’ve totally forgotten about the private key aspect.
I’ll see if I can source a better definition online, but make no promises.
Edit: https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/blockchain/ the last line is not applicable to Git
Oh a 3rd definition, that definitely hurts the case that blockchain is vague ill defined term. If it were a well-defined term, there would be whitepapers defining it like merkle trees or bitcoin. Blockchain is just a marketing term defined by businesses, not scientists or engineers and thus is vague and variable.
I also don’t think your definition is a very good definition. Do you think git fundamentally changes when it moves from sha1 to sha256? Or are you referring to the fact that the payloads of cryptocurrency’s blockchain is required to be signed (just like you can optionally require git commits to be signed)? I don’t think that’s fundamental to blockchain either.
No. You can’t modify the chain in git. Each commit is an immutable snapshot of the repository. To change history you have to create a new hash and then broadcast that to everyone that they should stop using the old one. Depending in how your network is setup you may onky have to convince a centralized server, or you might have to convince 51% of the actors on your network or you may just choose to only form a network that agrees with you. You could alter bitcoin’s blockchain too, but you’d need 51% of the network to agree with you.
The phrases used to describe the technology to the public may change, but the technolgical approach doesn’t
There are hundreds of blockchain whitepapers, all of which link blocks of data via hash functions and only accept state changes if they are valid and cryptographicaly signed.
If we were discussing web3 or Metaverse then you may have a point. But no-one in tech is confused about what blockchain is anymore.
No.
Yes. Exactly this.
Optionally is the key word. Blockchain transactions must be signed, and they must be accepted as following the blockchain rules by validators.
Find me a blockchain that doesn’t require signed transactions to make state changes.
I didn’t say anything about modify the chain.
A commit can contain any data it likes. A commit to a blockchain is highly restricted. Only cryptographicly valid rule following changes are allowed to blockchain state.
But this is just a policy decision, not a property of the technology. You can easily implement a script that checks if every commit from remotes are signed, accepts them if they are and drops them if they aren’t or the signature is invalid.
If you contribute to a project where the majority require signed commits, then you need to sign commits in order for your change to be integrated into the consensus.
That has nothing to do with the technology itself, just with the application.
So if you state that signatures are required to be a blockchain, then you can use git to create a blockchain, by just having that policy.
(IMO I wouldn’t say that signatures are required, just that blockchains usually have them.)
Now add some logic to check whether the actual data is valid (i.e. bob has enough coins in his account to send to Charlie).
Make some incentive to ensure only the main branch survives and forks are either eliminated or merged.
Automate
Now git replicates blockchain’s functionality.
Yes, but add automatically processing the content of the commit for validity and incentives to reduce the number of forks.
Without public key cryptography you just have a hash linked list (like Git).
Hash is cryptographic function.
A hash function doesn’t check if a signature is valid. Neither does git. Blockchain does check.
And?
https://lemmy.world/comment/8278003
Again, find the difference. Each block(commit object) has its content(blobs and trees) and metadata like parent blocks(commit objects), time(and message). So one commit corresponds only to one history.
But git can branch in multiple forks and states of the database. Blockchain has mechanisms to ensure there is convergence to one state.
Still haven’t found it. You suddenly started talking about consensus protocol. Bitcoin blockchain branches too, but consensus protocol sets last block(HEAD in git) to block with longest history.
How does it “certainly meet it”? There is no consensus mechanism in git, new blocks are not replicated across the network, there is no network at all, git works offline. You can replicate changes with remotes but there is no “git network” in any similar sense. And conflicts are definitely not resolved automatically. And the git hashes are certainly not cryptographic.
That’s 4 ways it doesn’t meet the definition. You could maybe stretch the meaning of a network to make it 3.