Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well”
by neilalexander on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @06:04AM
(#22297573)
> I'm not sure using this definition of blockchain (i.e. optional consensus protocol) is very useful
Honestly, "blockchain" as a word feels ill-defined and badly understood at the best of times. You could argue that "blockchain" deconstructs to nothing more than a "chain" of "blocks". What "blocks" actually are is up to the imagination, proof-of-work or other algorithms aside.
I get frustrated when people hail "blockchains" as the solution to everything because the term is so vague in everyday use that it's effectively meaningless.
Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well”
by icebraining on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @10:19AM
(#22299105)
I always thought it was clear: it was the combination of Merkle chains with a proof of investment (work, stake, etc), since that combination was the real novelty, worthy of a new name. It was quite confusing to see people calling "blockchain" to one of the pre-existing concepts. It's like calling any wheel a "bicycle".
If Git is like using a hammer to hammer nails, blockchain (with consensus protocol) enables you to write without a pen by using the hammer to hit your thumb until it bleeds. And Wikipedia already has a pen that works.