[politician]

There are different classes of blockchains. For example, the data structure managed by `git` is a blockchain. So, in and of themselves, blockchains are not problematic. When you raise those criticisms you probably meant to address the security function of the consensus mechanism for distributed decentralized ledgers. The security function there is crazy not because the people are evil scammers and con artists, but because Byzantine Fault Tolerance [1] is a hard CS problem, like AI.

Tiered systems for central bank digital currencies that allow complete tracking of all transactions are an active area of interest by central banks. For instance, the PBoC has filed over 80 patents on the subject. You can be sure that these systems don't attempt to solve BFT, don't use as much electricity, and don't protect the peasants from the abuses of the rulers.

[1] https://decrypt.co/resources/byzantine-fault-tolerance-what-...

[bratwurst3000]

Isnt git a merkle tree? And a blockchain a special case of a merkle tree? More like a merkle chain ^.^

[tylersmith]

That's exactly what a blockchain is. Blockchain being the "secret sauce" has always been a misconception; as noted git is exactly a blockchain. What we call refs in git are blocks in Bitcoin.

Nakamoto consensus was the innovation, the major energy consumer, and not necessary for cryptographic data integrity like a CBDC or git repo needs.

[bratwurst3000]

Interesting side fact. Proof of work was used before in 2004 to prevent spam but it failed. Nakamoto put that concept in a merkle tree.

https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/8/238347-the-history-o...

[erosenbe0]

Adding signatures or a cipher to nodes is basically the difference.