On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:31:05AM +0100, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> > Care to explain what exactly a "blockchain" is being used for in this case?
> >
> > In particular, how does what you are doing differ from the directec acyclic graph structure seen in, say, git-style decentralized revision control systems?
> >
>
> Although there is a central server in the reference implementation, the
> algorithm is designed to be able to be p2p and if two groups become
> partitioned for a period of time, the chain will fork and when they
> re-join, the longest fork of the chain will win with those using the
> shorter fork being reverted.
> I'm using the term blockchain because unlike git, it is a p2p consensus
> seeking algorithm... And I happen to have stolen almost every design
> aspect from Satoshi.

But you're leaving out the PoW/difficulty that makes it "consensus
seeking", yet at the same time also inherenting the linear nature of it
that obstructs groups trying to work together by making it impossible to
merge forks together.

Why should two groups that have become partitioned be unable to merge
their respective histories together when editing a document?

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000039d6ffee2cd4a4162ad9bdb665abeb5f916af96dbd0b83f9