• __dev@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Key word distributed ledger. Git repositories don’t talk to each other except when told to do so by users.

      I shouldn’t need to explain why an access key is not a consensus algorithm. Seriously?

      • far_university1990@feddit.de
        1·
        1 year ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_ledger no need to talk automatically, only distribution necessary without single point of failure. say „synchronized“, if you mean realtime synchronized then not in git, but synchronized manually.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science) only need to determine which block to commit to database, access key do that. if meant in term of „which repo is real one“, signed commit optional feature, maybe that speak against it being blockchain because not by default.

        • __dev@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Distributed ledger data is typically spread across multiple nodes (computational devices) on a P2P network, where each replicates and saves an identical copy of the ledger data and updates itself independently of other nodes. The primary advantage of this distributed processing pattern is the lack of a central authority, which would constitute a single point of failure. When a ledger update transaction is broadcast to the P2P network, each distributed node processes a new update transaction independently, and then collectively all working nodes use a consensus algorithm to determine the correct copy of the updated ledger. Once a consensus has been determined, all the other nodes update themselves with the latest, correct copy of the updated ledger.

          From your first link. This does not describe how git functions. Did you actually read the page?

          The consensus problem requires agreement among a number of processes (or agents) for a single data value. Some of the processes (agents) may fail or be unreliable in other ways, so consensus protocols must be fault tolerant or resilient. The processes must somehow put forth their candidate values, communicate with one another, and agree on a single consensus value.

          From your second this. Again this description does not match with git.

          You’re right in that automation is not technically required; you can build a blockchain using git by having people perform the distribution and consensus algorithms themselves. Obviously that doesn’t make git itself a blockchain in the same way it doesn’t make IP a blockchain.

          • far_university1990@feddit.de
            1·
            1 year ago

            Did you actually read the page?

            Not fully, only summary at top because looked like already proved my point of not need automation.

            Then you right, git by itself not blockchain. Maybe not even possible with signed commit only because central authority (key owner).

            Thank you for discussion.