The blockchain community are their own worst enemies. There are some interesting use cases for the technology, but those are lost in the noise of the big crowd that treat it like a get-rich-quick scheme.

All the “HODL”, “diamond hands” and other memes in those circles essentially amount to trying to rally people to (artificially) increase the price of Bitcoin/Ethereum/whatever.

And the more they succeed in doing so, the larger the incentive to run scams or waste power running “mining” computers.

There are legitimate criticism to blockchain technologies and arguments that could be made against its usefulness in the future.

However, one of the things that fuel my believe on blockchain is how many the arguments against it are falacies and/or full of ignorance like this one.

"Someone made the wrong assertion that git is blockchain IMPLIES THAT blockchain is going down and their adepts are desperate" a very simple fallacy to realize to be honest, not worthy of hacker news.

Also ignorant things like: "stumping up in a complicated, exclusionary, and non-existent proof-of-stake system its advocates claim is just around the corner every six months"

1. It is not complicated, I understand it 2. It is less exclusionary than proof of work 3. It exists 4. It launches next month (aprox 15th September) on Ethereum

I partly disagree with the author, but glancing at other articles of the same blog, it seems that nuance is often left out.

On technical merits, the first point is kind of invalid. You can't rewrite history in git without changing commit IDs. And the two others are the same point: git doesn't have a distributed consesus mechanism.

It would be very easy to build one, though, which gets git close enough for comparison purposes. And the "blockchain" term only hints at the merkle tree aspect.

Now, on rebranding: while I feel the comparison apt, it shouldn't be used as a successfull example of blockchain technology. It can to an extent, but blockchain means something different in people's mind. I'd still do the comparison while pointing out the difference.

And that's something I often do, when explaining how either works.

And to me, blockchain (including consensus) is still a mathematical curiosity that hasn't proven useful yet. I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.

FWIW I've used the "Git is a blockchain" argument to argue in the opposite direction: i.e. that blockchains are not anything new or innovative.
Is anybody really calling git a blockchain? I have only seen this equivalence made by critics saying "we don't need blockchain, we already have git!"
Fossil has a pretty thoughtful analysis[0] about whether it fits the definition of a blockchain. If you're interested in those semantics, it's far better than the OP's treatment, IMHO.

[0]: https://www3.fossil-scm.org/site.cgi/doc/2022-05-28/www/bloc...

> Calling git a blockchain to rebrand bad tech

Does he have any examples of people making this claim? Otherwise the post just seems like a lengthy strawman (or what's the name for an argument based on defeating a made-up statement?).

The problem is not the blockchain, but the cryptocurrency with it's harmful consent-mechanism, also all the scams happening with it. These are two different technologies. And only one of them is highly problematic.
I have a rule that I do not take any discussion about how "some people are saying!" seriously unless the discussion includes direct links to people saying that.
I didn’t see a single link in the article to the pro-blockchain crowd trying to claim Git is blockchain. It’s almost always the anti-blockchain crowd that says “blockchains don’t add anything new, it’s just Git with scams on it”.

I suspect this person has misinterpreted the messaging they’re hearing and misunderstood the position being taken.

It’s also unclear if they don’t know how to spell Ethereum or if they’re weakening their argument by purposely misspelling it.

This is a somewhat poorly worded title. At first glance it sounds like git is the bad technology that’s being rebranded, which made absolutely no sense. I had to read the article to realize that some blockchain people are claiming git as a kind of blockchain. But that’s not really a rebranding for blockchains, either. The title aside, the actual blog post makes some good points and is worth a read.
"git is a blockchain" is a meme that is exclusively pushed by anti-crypto activists because it provides the basis for their "no there there" talking point (note the popularity of this phrase in particular).

Evidence: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1499637399751692288

The entire article is arguing a strawman.

A better suited discussion is whether fossil, an alternative to git, is a blockchain: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/blockchain.md
Using Git as a 'blockchain' was a core part of my experimental essay on NFTs: https://github.com/wcerfgba/moneylab-nft-essay
What "crypto people" are claiming Git is a blockchain?

I usually see that claim from people trying to claim blockchains are nothing new, as in "git has existed forever, blockchains are dumb."

This is a super low-quality article.

possible a scalable blockchain might provide 'distributed' platforms with novel ways of income that doesn't involve selling your data or showing adverts

reddit/moons thing is interesting as a kind of experiment of all issues there and problems to solve

im not convinced yet that the result will be something good, a kind of hypercapitalistic zero-sum internet rat race

I am not sure that git needs to be rebranded - nor do I believe that calling it a blockchain will help that effort in any way.

Good day sir.

My favorite blockchain is Perforce.
Should linked lists also be renamed to blockchains?
Merkle tree*