[sfescape]

I don't agree with that. The oldest blockchain known has its hash codes published each week in the New York Times. I would agree that having the ability to prove the history hasn't been modified by externally retaining the hashes could be a component, but git qualifies for that as well.

[Born_Again]

I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article for a blockchain [0]. It's agreed that a blockchain is decentralized and resistant to change from bad actors. If a system doesn't meet those requirements, it's just a fancy database. I don't see how Git or the New York Times example you mentioned are inherently decentralized.

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

[sfescape]

The New York Times example is by the inventors of blockchain.

https://www.anf.es/pdf/Haber_Stornetta.pdf

[ysleepy]

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_timestamping

This is technology from the 90s. The innovation of blockchain is the no-trust agreement protocol.

[elcomet]

But when was the term 'blockchain' used for the first time?

This is just a matter of definition. You can call git blockchain or not, the only fact is that git shares the merkle tree property with Bitcoin.