[baby]

Two things:

1) It seems like the term "block chain" as used by block chain companies is pointing to what the bitcoin blockchain is but without the proof of work. So, a database which history could be cryptographically audited.

2) I don't think those are necessarily bad points for Bitcoin. Maybe it is run by speculators or gold diggers but in the end many people (including me and friends) have used/are using bitcoin for legitimate reasons.

[arethuza]

"So, a database which history could be cryptographically audited."

Doesn't git already meet that requirement?

[davidgerard]

Yes. I predict that in 2017 there will be many "business Blockchain" products that will be a transaction ledger in a Merkle tree - because this is actually really good and a useful idea! - and that developers will be able to tell buzzword-prone management "oh, we've been using, ahh, blockchain-related technologies since 2005!" cos they use git.

[alexjarvis]

No because it's cheap to produce hashes for git.

[valarauca1]

It is cheap to make GIT hashes but it remains impossible to day to generate git collisions.

The cost of hashing only has to do with the creation of blocks. Which blocks are not required to be cryptographically verifiable.

[alexjarvis]

How are blocks not required to be cryptographically verifiable?

[detaro]

1) IMHO then supports that they use the term because it is trendy to use, not for technical reasons. (FWIW other blockchain enthusiasts insist that proof-of-work is an elementary part of the concept, and I think that is a useful distinction to make in comparison to other distributed or cryptographic data structures)