[hiq]

That's using a specific definition of a blockchain that differs significantly from e.g. Bitcoin and Ethereum which are two of the most popular ones and the ones commonly referred to, along with their decentralization properties. The Schneier post I linked explains fairly how these are not novel and have nothing to do with the current hype beyond the confusing naming.

Concretely, if Scuttlebutt uses a blockchain, then Git also uses a blockchain by a similar reasoning. I don't think the original post claiming that "there are no use cases for blockchains" was implicitly claiming that Git (or Scuttlebut) is not relevant software, just that they don't use a blockchain, because indeed they don't for any interesting definition of "blockchain".

[sdiacom]

I agree with you completely, the "blockchain" term is confusing, and by the definition I'm using, Git would also be a sort of blockchain. The more that blockchain (the grift) expands, the more that the meaning of blockchain (the technology) is diluted.

A key difference to me between Git and Scuttlebutt, which in my (most likely flawed) view makes Scuttlebutt "blockchain-er", is the distributed nature of it. You add a friend on Scuttlebutt, and this will fetch their content from any node, and all their friends' contents. It has an "automatic replication across nodes" aspect which Git does not have.

[Disclaimer: I haven't used Scuttlebutt in a long while, so I may be getting the technical details of the friends-of-friends-replication thing wrong.]