If your definition of "blockchain" is any distributed database with signed rows and a public read-only API, it's miles away from what Satoshi was talking about... Why don't you just call it a "distributed database with signed entries" or something.

or simply "git"

When meeting my company's Head of Blockchain (not sure if the pun is intended) a while ago, I asked him if git would qualify as blockchain technology. He replied that "blockchain is not a technology, It's a paradigm shift". Literally. That statement was so absurd I didn't even know what to say, so it worked out well for him.

This is exactly what's driving my skepticism. The people who I've met who are most vocal about "blockchain" are also the ones who know little to nothing about the algorithm itself (and algorithms in general).

That is exactly the kind of thing I would expect to hear from a "Head of Blockchain". Your company made a great hire, and they will clearly push the boundaries of marketing bullshit with regard to blockchain.

I’m with on that but i feel like the punchline of that story should be “my company has a Head of Blockchain”.

In their defense, they tried the title "Blockhead" first but that didn't look as good on the résumé.

Please start a blog and write more about what goes on in this company.

Whenever I hear someone say that, I'm reminded of this Dilbert strip: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-08-25

> PoW is just one of available consensus algorithms.

No, because blockchain is not a consensus protocol.

Blockchain does imply a consensus protocol, though. Thats what the block is for.

No, very much not. There is no such thing as consensus in blockchain. Can you (you in particular) even define the term "consensus"? Can you explain how does your definition relate to what is commonly used in computer science and how it works with the impossibility proofs?