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?

  • steeznson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    There is debate over whether a git history is a blockchain or a DAG (Directed Acyclical Graph). I’d say it was the latter.

    • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Who says blockchains cant also form a DAG?
      Its a blockchain because each block contains a digest of the previous block(s), which creates a tamper-evident chain of digests for all history.

      Its just a type of blockchain, just like a subaru is a type of car.

      You might have grown up thinking “all cars have 4 wheels”, but my subaru has a fifth wheel in the back and its still a car because having exactly 4 wheels it not the defining charcteristic of cars.

      • steeznson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Personally I’d say the distinction comes with the decentralisation being enforced. Git has it as a feature but each copy of a git repository isn’t reliant on every other copy. It’s asymmetric.

        • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          Git uses signed blocks for centralization… you can see that the official linux kernel is signed by linus torvalds… but all of this is irrelevant because blockchains are a datastructure that is indepenant from the concept of centralization. It is just a chain of blocks… proof-of-work and signing are about centralization but they are different concepts.

          • steeznson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            I’m not sure I follow how (de)centralisation can be a different concept from blockchains when the definition of a blockchain is something like a ledger-like data structure which is immutable, decentralised and distributed.

            Meanwhile with git, one user can unilaterally change the history by hard resetting and force pushing; then the other “nodes” just have to accept the changes.

            • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Idk where you got that definition… a block chain is just a chain of blocks…

              If someone unilaterally forces a history change, that will be apparent to everyone and they can choose to reject those changes…

              • steeznson@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Ok, I think we’ve established that we disagree what a blockchain is. Doesn’t really matter I suppose, nice talking with you!