935
The Internet Archive and its 916 billion saved web pages are back online
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
935 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
58698 readers
4096 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
To be fair that would not necessarily be because of the blockchain part, more because of the decentralized/federated nature of this theorical network
Sure, but the networking and consent-finding are defining features of a blockchain. Nobody calls a git repo a blockchain.
You mean a "github repo". Git by itself doesn't give a hoot about validating authors what-so-ever (I could sign as "Bill Gates bill@microsoft.com", and git would happily accept the commit), and it's not federated (multiple people manually downloading various states of the repo at various times doesn't count).
Github ensures owners are who they are, as linked to their profile (though email validation only goes as far as "Well, they clicked the link in the email, so this must be their email account"). Github also isn't federated, since that one site going down takes all the repos with it (unless someone had it cloned, but again, random people downloading at random times yields different states of the repo, depending on when the clone/fetch occured, but then you'd end up with tens/hundreds/thousands of sources of various levels of truth).
It's not a minor nitpick. The comment was that "nobody calls a git repo a blockchain". It's because it's not a blockchain, or even remotely similar to one.
You are right, I was just poking fun a little. No hard feelings. You did just kind of um akshually my use of um akshually tho
Github is a website, controlled by no less than Microsoft lol.
A git repo can be spread out like a "blockchain" without the messy validation and coin earnings, maybe that was the intended comparison?
Could it be? Sure, I don't see a technological reason why someone couldn't build a system like that.
Are they now (federated, or blockchained)? No.
True.
I'm working on a decentralised sharing protocol, but it uses reciprocal sharing so you'd have to have large storage anyways.