81–83 of 83 posts
- Memorization of whole piece == Proof of work - You need lots of people to agree upon the story == 51 % of nodes - You can only append to the piece, because many others know and have memorized the piece so they will not agree to your version.
It is a hash of a block, but not a chain. For this to be a chain, it would have to be published multiple times, each time containing references to previous blocks under the published hash. Other than that I am pretty sure we can find many more examples. Hashing and publishing the hash is pretty popular way to prove timestamp of a secret without revealing the secret, yet. I did it myself a couple of times when I wante…
> a copy of that seal and every other seal created by Surety’s customers is sent to the AbsoluteProof “universal registry database,” which is a “hash-chain” composed entirely of Surety customer seals. This creates an immutable record of all the Surety seals ever produced, so that it is impossible for the company or any malicious actor to modify a seal.
Another well known example of course is git (which slightly extends the definition to a directed acyclic graph).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should it need to be decentralized? A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name. If you hash blocks that contain hashes of previous blocks, you have a blockchain. At most it might be argued that a centralized blockchain has no reason to exist, but I doubt that's true.
> A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name. No, it doesn't work like that. "Blockchain" is understood to mean something and you can't decompose the compound word and say "well, here's a block. Oh, and here's a chain. I guess this is a block chain." Your description, e.g., applies to a Merkle tree [0], which git uses, and was published in 1979. But no one has…
That might be a losing battle, but not sure the battle is over yet...