The basic definition of a blockchain covers the implementation of git.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776

> Why is Git not considered a "block chain"?

> ....

> And this is what Git does, and hence Git is a blockchain, or works as one, if you prefer.

> To close the circle, let's ask again: Why is Git not considered a “block chain”? It could be because many people, perhaps even a large majority, do not focus on the essence of a concept but on blinking accidents.

I guess, as the question/answer implies, ultimately, it's personal opinion.

I look at Git and other DVCSs implementations and see that they match the definition of blockchain.

> A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leafs).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain (and... 'see also Version Control' on the same page...)

Interesting. So the one useful application of blockchain technology is the one application that's not commonly called blockchain.

Perhaps? I think so, but I appreciate other people clearly have different (strong!) opinions on it.

Coming from academia, I take the definition in the wiki page (I keep quoting, sorry), and for me, that neatly defines, most modern DVCSs.

Yes, same. Probably some bad digestion ongoing.