One of the crucial differences between blockchain and Git is that Git is fully subserviant to humans and anything can be undone by humans.

If your blockchain house title is stolen by a hacker, either the courts (rightfully) aren't going to put any significance on the state of the blockchain and are going to say "yeah, you still own your house" (in which case what was the point of using blockchain in the first place rather than a SQL database or some such where mistakes and problems and fraud can be undone without cryptographically-hard obstacles in the way) or if in this hypothetical the Libertarian dystopia has progressed to cartoonish extremes, you're just SOL and lost your house, which just isn't even remotely realistic.

How are they going to implement it, I guess by linking your identity to your porn-blockchain key.

I guess there's no better way to track your habits.

Ah yes, let's just make everyone's financial transactions public record. That couldn't possibly be an insanely dangerous thing to do.

is a helluva drug

It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.

And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.