[losvedir]

> 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 ever or will ever call it a blockchain.

Is a Ford F-150 that's been lit on fire a firetruck? How much straw is in a strawberry?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree

[FabHK]

You're on the right side of the linguistic prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate, but I think the meaning of that word might not have settled enough yet. Personally, I think it makes sense to restrict "blockchain" to a chain (or DAG) of blocks with hashes, and refer to Bitcoin etc. technology as blockchain + POW (rather than having "blockchain" subsume the POW).

That might be a losing battle, but not sure the battle is over yet...

[scott_s]

My go-to example for this is "putting a Hershey's bar in the microwave is not hot chocolate."