You mean a “github repo”. Git by itself doesn’t give a hoot about validating authors what-so-ever (I could sign as “Bill Gates bill@microsoft.com”, and git would happily accept the commit), and it’s not federated (multiple people manually downloading various states of the repo at various times doesn’t count).
Github ensures owners are who they are, as linked to their profile (though email validation only goes as far as “Well, they clicked the link in the email, so this must be their email account”). Github also isn’t federated, since that one site going down takes all the repos with it (unless someone had it cloned, but again, random people downloading at random times yields different states of the repo, depending on when the clone/fetch occured, but then you’d end up with tens/hundreds/thousands of sources of various levels of truth).
It’s not a minor nitpick. The comment was that “nobody calls a git repo a blockchain”. It’s because it’s not a blockchain, or even remotely similar to one.
No worries. I just correct people on it because it’s caused problems at work before. It’s a pain when people think that git automatically means github, and they start complaining about cost, and Microsoft feeding their AI, and setting up user accounts, and etc etc etc.
I’m like… dude, I just want to sync the code from a central server, we can do it in house for free in 5 minutes…
The core feature of all blockchain tech.
To be fair that would not necessarily be because of the blockchain part, more because of the decentralized/federated nature of this theorical network
Sure, but the networking and consent-finding are defining features of a blockchain. Nobody calls a git repo a blockchain.
You mean a “github repo”. Git by itself doesn’t give a hoot about validating authors what-so-ever (I could sign as “Bill Gates bill@microsoft.com”, and git would happily accept the commit), and it’s not federated (multiple people manually downloading various states of the repo at various times doesn’t count).
Github ensures owners are who they are, as linked to their profile (though email validation only goes as far as “Well, they clicked the link in the email, so this must be their email account”). Github also isn’t federated, since that one site going down takes all the repos with it (unless someone had it cloned, but again, random people downloading at random times yields different states of the repo, depending on when the clone/fetch occured, but then you’d end up with tens/hundreds/thousands of sources of various levels of truth).
It’s not a minor nitpick. The comment was that “nobody calls a git repo a blockchain”. It’s because it’s not a blockchain, or even remotely similar to one.
You are right, I was just poking fun a little. No hard feelings. You did just kind of um akshually my use of um akshually tho
No worries. I just correct people on it because it’s caused problems at work before. It’s a pain when people think that git automatically means github, and they start complaining about cost, and Microsoft feeding their AI, and setting up user accounts, and etc etc etc.
I’m like… dude, I just want to sync the code from a central server, we can do it in house for free in 5 minutes…
Github is a website, controlled by no less than Microsoft lol.
A git repo can be spread out like a “blockchain” without the messy validation and coin earnings, maybe that was the intended comparison?
Could it be? Sure, I don’t see a technological reason why someone couldn’t build a system like that.
Are they now (federated, or blockchained)? No.
True.
I’m working on a decentralised sharing protocol, but it uses reciprocal sharing so you’d have to have large storage anyways.
Hoof, yeah. Collaboration tools always seem to come down to bandwidth, storage, or both.
You need to use something I guess :-) Any examples?
deleted by creator