[fanf2]

The main practical example is git. It does have some partial mitigations for fixing its historical record, for example the mailmap file for correcting names and email addresses. And, I suppose in the worst case a project could rebase its entire history to expunge illegal commits.

Fortunately there’s little chance of blockchain as in cryptocurrency succeeding outside the scammers and their marks.

[mondoveneziano]

git does not have a distributed consensus algorithm, however, and does not rely on proof-of-work/space/stake. Whether a rewrite of history is accepted is up to every consumer of any repository individually.

[bb88]

When etherium and bitcoin forked, the distributed consensus algorithms didn't resolve it. People decided which forks they wanted to use themselves.

That's not much different than git frankly for any given open source project.

[randomhodler84]

What are you talking about? You misspelled “Ethereum” and Bitcoin never forked with it. Its a totally different thing. Unrelated. Chain splits Are nothing like forking code in open source; forking code is this analogous to altcoins. LTC is a code fork of BTC.

Chain splits are more like a consensus failure and could be likened to a religious scism.

It’s generally undesirable and so are forked coins. There are many many fork coins that nobody cares about.

[drdeca]

They presumably didn’t mean a fork between bitcoin and Ethereum, but the variety of forks on those chains.

Ok, well, how many times has the main bitcoin chain had a, uh, so there was the fixing some underflow really early on iirc, I think that counts, but I think that was a soft fork? Has the main bitcoin chain ever had a successful hard fork? I don’t know.

Anyway.

[BenjiWiebe]

Bitcoin Cash?

[drdeca]

by "the main chain had a successful hard fork" I mean a hard fork where the side that won the common usage of the unadorned name "bitcoin" was the hard side of the fork.

[saurik]

(That description sounds a lot like Holochain.)