I agree. I just think calling it a "blockchain" should only apply to Bitcoin (and other like
cryptocurrency), since the Bitcoin Community created the term "blockchain" to describe the
Bitcoin's system of mining and block building.
Prior to Bitcoin and the Bitcoin blockchain, it would be considered "chain-stamping" or
"stampchains" or whatever. Only now that "blockchain" is an established term, do we now go
back and incorporate older works and change the "blockchain" definition so that those fit as well.
For example, I believe you need an incentivized token for a "blockchain" to work properly.
I believe that the secret to Bitcoin's success is that the token, the chain, and mining is the
same entity just represented in different ways. So, in that way, bitcoin = miners = blockchain,
so prior work or simpler systems such as what I linked to prior, are not blockchains, IMO.
This is why, IMO, a term "blockchain" should only be used in the context of Bitcoin.
The blockchain is the token and the miners, not just a chained ledger.
In my definition of "blockchain", the "blockchain" is something much larger,
it is like a full self-reinforcing system, like a stool on three legs.
um nah
im my definition.
bitcoin is a patchwork of atleast 10 concepts.
by saying a blockchain has to be only about bitcoin. then there becomes no need to call it blockchain. you would just call it bitcoin
like a stool. you wont need to talk about a stool leg and why having stool legs set at a certain angle and pieced together with a seat, with interconnecting footrest which reinforces the legs. and then a covering of paint and gloss makes it important. you would just say here is a stool.
atleast separating the word leg. you can then say stool X has 3 legs at a slight diagonal angle or another stool has 4 vertical legs. or the legs are made of steel instead of wood. you can then explain why one stool is better than another stool
p.s
stool.. is something you find in the toilet before you flush
so be careful when trying to have 2 things meaning one thing.
because if 2 things mean one thing.. then it gets confusing when asking someone if they want to see the stool you put on your kitchen floor
My point is, that in my view, you can not have a successful blockchain without an incentivized token.
Of course, you can remove the token technically, but that blockchain system will fail.
I think the token, the miner, and the blockchain is actually the same thing.
You can separate them so that people understand, but Bitcoin only works because all 3 is actually 1.
Those three parts combine to create a single entity, Bitcoin.
If you remove one of the parts, the system can not properly function as intended.
Blockchains that do not use incentivization or mining, IMO, will never work long term.
Blockchains are not necessary or efficient when doing things other than what Bitcoin does.
PS. Yes, stool can either be a chair or a fecal sample, in english. Lol
I meant a three legged chair.
