Hello,

I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It’s not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.

is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?

  • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
    5·
    8 days ago

    However git can be considered to be based on blockchain

    That’s really stretching the definition of blockchain.

    Blockchain is about providing consensus without relying on a central authority. If there are two variants of the same blockchain, anyone should be able to independently verify which one is the real one. Git doesn’t do this.

    • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      No a blockchain is a chain of blocks. Its an append only datastructure that provides a cryptographically verifiable history. Proof-of-work is what allows for public concensus in crypto currencies like bitcoin, where as git uses signed blocks to identify different chains.

      • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
        11·
        8 days ago

        Git doesn’t sign commits, at least not cryptographically. I can download the Linux git repo and add whatever commits I like to it. I can even create my own commits under Torvalds’ name and email if I’d like, or rewrite all his commits under my own name.

        It’s highly unlikely I can fool anyone it’s the real deal though. They will just download the kernel from the official repo instead.

    • troed@fedia.io
      11·
      8 days ago

      That’s one definition of blockchain. Since the solution to the Byzantine Generals’ problem in Bitcoin is done by Proof of Work it can’t be said to be a part of the blockchain definition since there are many (most?) blockchains that don’t use PoW. Some companies peddling “blockchain solutions” even use central authorities.

      So, with “blockchain” just being a chain of cryptographically verified blocks then git indeed fulfills that definition.