“We already store data. In a database. It works well”

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by bob1029 on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @06:02AM (#22297563)

I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm) is the most important quality of a blockchain. To say that git is technically a blockchain is not entirely inaccurate IMO.

I think you are looking for the other qualities that typically apply to a blockchain such as the implicit need to "mine" its resources. Git simply produces these resources incidentally. I think this is the only major difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @06:42AM (#22297718)

> I would argue the Merkle tree (or any other recursive signature algorithm)

A Merkle tree is not a recursive signature algorithm, because a hash function is not a signature algorithm.

https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-pass...

(Yes, you can build signature algorithms out of hash functions, but definitions matter.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by meowface on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @09:09AM (#22298560)

It's still missing important pieces. They both fall under the superset of "hash chain" / Merkle tree, but cryptocurrency blockchains are designed to deal with the possibility of bad actors. Git can't ensure trust, unless you PGP sign commits.

Git + PGP + some computationally expensive mechanism to broadcast verified PGP key attributions + a consensus algorithm might be a little bit like a blockchain, but I can't think of a good use case for that. Git repos generally aren't intended to be pushed to by the whole world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by hannasanarion on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @09:49AM (#22298867)

A blockchain doesn't ensure trust either. The blockchain "trusts" whoever has the most powerful hash cracking array.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by meowface on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @11:38AM (#22299803)

I should've said "attempt to ensure trust".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by CiPHPerCoder on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @10:04AM (#22298991)

Incidentally, this is a problem I've worked on previously.

https://github.com/paragonie/libgossamer/tree/master/docs

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by andrewflnr on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @10:48AM (#22299367)

The most important part of a block chain is its consensus mechanism. The merkle tree is relatively trivial.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by jnwatson on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @01:31PM (#22301105)

There's significant difference in opinion of what part of the Bitcoin protocol is the "blockchain". Usually, people talk about the persistent stuff being the blockchain. In that case, bits sitting in storage don't implement a protocol, therefore don't have a consensus mechanism.

In other words, the blockchain is just the data structure, the consensus sits outside of that as a distributed protocol.

Of course, parts of that data structure enable the protocol to work, which is the most interesting property of the blockchain, but that's just blocks, merkle trees, and chained signatures.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“We already store data. In a database. It works well” by andrewflnr on Tuesday February 11, 2020 @03:41PM (#22302602)

If you're focusing on the construction of the term "blockchain", you're already lost. The name is a red herring. It's very clear that the innovative aspect of the technology, the part that enabled all the interesting applications, is the protocol layered on top of the merkle tree. That's the part that needed a new name, and deserved a better one than it got.

[ Parent | on HN ]