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?

  • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    24 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
      ·
      24 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
        1
        ·
        24 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
          23 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
            2
            ·
            23 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
              ·
              23 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!