[sham1]

Well, Git's also not a blockchain at least in the way commonly meant by the term. But yeah, it'd be a pretty bad bank account (and an even worse way of doing money transfers.)

[lagniappe]

Git is by the literal definition a blockchain.

[turkey99]

Seems a bit of a stretch. Git is not linear, and there’s no consensus mechanisms

[_heimdall]

git is linear, if multiple users have a different main branch history you have a problem.

Pull requests in github is actually very similar conceptually to a consensus mechanism used in crypto currencies. Everyone has an identical copy of the main branch with an identical history of every commit in order, a PR is saying "I think this commit goes next" and, if you use code reviews, the PR approval is consensus.

[bugbuddy]

This is the most unhinged thing I have ever read about git ever. Please share whatever you are hitting.

Have you ever seen a git graph? Does this look linear? https://tortoisegit.org/docs/tortoisegit/images/RevisionGrap...

[_heimdall]

Have you considered that the single source of truth, the chain that has consensus in the blockchain terminology, is the main/primary branch?

All secondary branches are works in progress that may be proposed as new commits to main.

Sticking with the blockchain comparison, every side branch in got is akin to potential blocks that miners are working on.

[bugbuddy]

Well, that’s it. I am done with this site.

[_heimdall]

No idea why this got down voted.

git is very much a blockchain

- sequential list of changes to a data source (commits)

- single, shared history of changes (main branch)

- users creating potential next change(s) to be added to the history (side branches and forks)

- consensus mechanism for new change blocks (merge requests and code reviews or approvals)

What's missing?

[hitsurume]

Receiving a coin / token everytime someone gets their branch merged? This is a joke btw, please don't make a gitcoin YC....