Is it time someone defined "The Blockchain"?

[Jet Cash]

People who understand Bitcoin realise that "blockchain" isn't really a technology, it's just a simple sequential file with linking between adjacent records. However, the word seems to have captured the imagination of the public, and there are many who have jumped on an expanded concept to push their own products.  There seem to be a lot of people who assume that "The Blockchain" is synonymous with Bitcoin, and this is far from the truth. We constantly see products being publicised with major omissions from the Bitcoin concept. - no proof of work, no cryptography, no distributed ledger, centralised control, no public blockchain access, no significant peer community and many others.

It would appear that "The Blockchain" is here to stay as a descriptive phrase, so how can we get some consensus as to the elements that are basic to the "technology"?

[1714127135]

1714127135

[1714127135]

1714127135

[1714127135]

1714127135

[Soros Shorts]

"blockchain" isn't really a technology, it's just a simple sequential file with linking between adjacent records.

Have you looked in your Bitcoin core data folder? It is not implemented as a sequential file there.

But I do agree that people should realize that Bitcoin is not synonymous as Blockchain. This is obvious from the fact that shit coins also use blockchain technology.

[franky1]

People who understand Bitcoin realise that "blockchain" isn't really a technology, it's just a simple sequential file with linking between adjacent records. However, the word seems to have captured the imagination of the public, and there are many who have jumped on an expanded concept to push their own products.  There seem to be a lot of people who assume that "The Blockchain" is synonymous with Bitcoin, and this is far from the truth. We constantly see products being publicised with major omissions from the Bitcoin concept. - no proof of work, no cryptography, no distributed ledger, centralised control, no public blockchain access, no significant peer community and many others.

It would appear that "The Blockchain" is here to stay as a descriptive phrase, so how can we get some consensus as to the elements that are basic to the "technology"?

those that know databases. know the old terms of

DBMS
and later
RDBMS.
for blockchain lets just go with
BRDBMS

then when talking about bitcoin (yes im going extreme now)
bitcoin=
PDP2PECDSASHA256POW BRDBMS
publicly distributed peer2peer ecdsa encrypted signatures sha256 cryptographically secured proof of work blocks
where hyperledger
CSHA512POA BRDBMS
centralised sha512 cryptographically secured proof of authority

yea my examples are not accurate. but there are a million and one ways to try explaining it. to those that need to know.

as for the laymens terminology..
blockchain is simply and only CHAINing BLOCKs of data together.

as for:
HOW its chained EG via sha, or md5 or other hashing. is not required as thats subjective and optional
HOW the chain is secured. EG PoW PoS PoA. is not required as thats subjective and optional
WHAT type of data is stored in the blocks, EG financial, medical, DNS, Identity. is not required as thats subjective and optional
WHAT rate data the data grows at. is not required as thats subjective and optional
WHERE the data is stored. eg on one system, private network or public network. . is not required as thats subjective and optional

these things are outside the scope of blockchain and are extra layers ontop

[AgentofCoin]

The purpose for creating the "blockchain" is what determines what it is:

Satoshi's Whitepaper description of what we call the blockchain today:

The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.

To prevent the doublespending issue, the answer was chained proof of work:

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactionsthat quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.

Since Satoshi needed something more than a simple ledger in order
to facilitate Bitcoin and make it successful over prior attempts, it can
not just be a simple chaining of blocks. The "blockchain" as it is known
today, is really a decentralized, majority agreed upon historical work with
the purpose of preventing edits and revisions without ease and universal
agreement.

[Vaccinus]

as i see the blockchain is just the decentralized ledger that use bitcoin as a currency, the enw tech define its ability to be decentralized in comaprison to the private ledger that the banks use

[Kprawn]

"The Blockchain" might not be synonymous with Bitcoin, but it is still a integral part of the technology and we should credit Bitcoin, with that

technology, because we put that on the map, for others to follow. What we should differentiate for the general public, should be the core

differences between these "private" Blockchain based technologies and what Bitcoin is. They should know the fundamental differences

between the two...   ... Bitcoin is permission-less / transparent / public / decentralized ....and so on.

[muhcoins]

People who understand Bitcoin realise that "blockchain" isn't really a technology

wtf
of course it is a technology... doest matter if it is simple or not.

at some point of the history, a wheel could be called "technology"... at my viewpoint, any possible solution to a problem is a technology.


 
Definition of technology
plural technologies
1
a :  the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area :  engineering 2 <medical technology>
b :  a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2
:  a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3
:  the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

[digaran]

People who understand Bitcoin realise that "blockchain" isn't really a technology

wtf
of course it is a technology... doest matter if it is simple or not.

at some point of the history, a wheel could be called "technology"... at my viewpoint, any possible solution to a problem is a technology.


 
Definition of technology
plural technologies
1
a :  the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area :  engineering 2 <medical technology>
b :  a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2
:  a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3
:  the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

Not exactly, because technology requires material properties and different parts, for example you can't call computer a technology if it wasn't made by different components and specially dedicated parts and that even wont work if not for having access to electricity.

A single cell in our body is in fact a huge factory, everything we use as technology has been created in nature and they are the original versions.
Bitcoin is not a new THING but an idea to use the already available technology like never before.

[Jet Cash]

By that comment - writing an address on a letter is technology.

I think that what has come out of this thread is that nobody really knows what "The Blockchain" is. We know what the Bitcoin blockchain is, and we know how several othersoftware systems use block chaining to sequence their records. It is apparent that there is no standard requirements for "The Blockchain" other than a PR budget.

[franky1]

The purpose for creating the "blockchain" is what determines what it is:

Satoshi's Whitepaper description of what we call the blockchain today:

The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.

To prevent the doublespending issue, the answer was chained proof of work:

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactionsthat quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.

Since Satoshi needed something more than a simple ledger in order
to facilitate Bitcoin and make it successful over prior attempts, it can
not just be a simple chaining of blocks. The "blockchain" as it is known
today, is really a decentralized, majority agreed upon historical work with
the purpose of preventing edits and revisions without ease and universal
agreement.

no

whats said above bitcoins preferred settings of blockchain.

take a look at the 1000+ altcoins.
they use PoS, PoA, etc

the question/logic bomb to ask yourself is..
if its using PoS instead of PoW, does that violate the discriptor of 'blockchain' to then suggest a altcoin is not using 'blockchain' due to not having PoW.

if its still technically using a 'blockchain' without PoW. then logically and technically 'blockchain' does not require PoW as a minimal requirement. and the decision for PoW/PoW is an 'optional extra' layer/decision outside the term 'blockchain'

another logic bomb to think about
does an altcoin have to emulate bitcoins security choices 100% just to be a 'blockchain'. thus making the difference between 'blockchain' and 'bitcoin' a grey area, due to refusing to deny the differences between the two terms/requirements

[chesatochi]

I saw lately many discussion on the blockchain. That is a revolution, and everyone seems to point to the bitcoin. I make a search on google, and I found a document that explains well the concept and his usage on Wikipedia.

I invite you to check the first 3 paragraphs of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_(database)

[franky1]

Bitcoin is not a new THING but an idea to use the already available technology like never before.

technology is where man has found a new way of doing things that is not found naturally.
simply. a man made tool.
if something later comes out that is even faster, better, easier. the previous tool gets de prioritied and treated as low-tech and the new tool is deemed hi-tech

if i created a technique(method/concept/way) to do something better faster easier compared to nature/past methods. its a technology.
yes it has to actually succeed in doing it. meaning its more then just an idea by actually achieving something.

EG the ball point pen was new tech in the last few hundred years. although now time has passed we laugh and call it lo-tech compared to hi-tech computers.. a pen is still technology made to make life easier compared to anything naturally available

[franky1]

I saw lately many discussion on the blockchain. That is a revolution, and everyone seems to point to the bitcoin. I make a search on google, and I found a document that explains well the concept and his usage on Wikipedia.

I invite you to check the first 3 paragraphs of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_(database)

thats just simply showing a working example of a successful use of a blockchain as part of its many mechanisms.

EG
someone asks what is a database.
someone shows mysql

that does not mean MSAccess is not a database or LevelDB is not a database because it does not emulate mysqls programmability features.. its just an example on one example of real world 'product' that uses the underlying item that is being asked about

[AgentofCoin]

The purpose for creating the "blockchain" is what determines what it is:

Satoshi's Whitepaper description of what we call the blockchain today:

The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.

To prevent the doublespending issue, the answer was chained proof of work:

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactionsthat quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.

Since Satoshi needed something more than a simple ledger in order
to facilitate Bitcoin and make it successful over prior attempts, it can
not just be a simple chaining of blocks. The "blockchain" as it is known
today, is really a decentralized, majority agreed upon historical work with
the purpose of preventing edits and revisions without ease and universal
agreement.

no

whats said above bitcoins preferred settings of blockchain.

take a look at the 1000+ altcoins.
they use PoS, PoA, etc

the question/logic bomb to ask yourself is..
if its using PoS instead of PoW, does that violate the discriptor of 'blockchain' to then suggest a altcoin is not using 'blockchain' due to not having PoW.

if its still technically using a 'blockchain' without PoW. then logically and technically 'blockchain' does not require PoW as a minimal requirement. and the decision for PoW/PoW is an 'optional extra' layer/decision outside the term 'blockchain'

another logic bomb to think about
does an altcoin have to emulate bitcoins security choices 100% just to be a 'blockchain'. thus making the difference between 'blockchain' and 'bitcoin' a grey area, due to refusing to deny the differences between the two terms/requirements

Yes, I do not believe that Non-PoW coins are technically using the "blockchain", IMO.
(Though it doesn't matter now, since it will take a hundred years before the term is corrected, if it is.)

I think, in theory, it should be a new chain type, even though the parts are mostly the same.
For example, a plane and car have roughly the same parts and functions except certain fundamental parts.
Now the car was invented first and then the plane, but we do not call planes "cars or flying cars" or such.

Yet, with cryptocurrency currently, we say each different proof of blank system are all using the "blockchain".
That would mean we are all saying, "my car has an engine" and "my plane has an engine", but that doesn't
describe what the intent or purpose of the engine is for that technology. It doesn't really make sense for
identification or understanding. Each different proof of blank system should have a different chain name
that distinguishes between the chains security/work mechanism.

For example:
PoW - blockchain (since it was first, otherwise it would be workchain)
PoS - stakechain
PoB - burnchain


But, if we use the term "blockchain" as just a superficial term, we shouldn't continue to say that Bitcoin invented
the "blockchain" because then it did not, but invented the proof of work chain, which was the first "blockchain"
until PoS was created, and then they co-opted the term, and now all other proof systems co-opted the term, so
everything is a blockchain now, and even recently, private centralized non-proof ledgers can also be a
blockchain if they have a block here and there that can chain here and there.

I think the term has be watered down to the point of irrelevance.

[franky1]

Yes, I do not believe that Non-PoW coins are technically using the "blockchain", IMO.
(Though it doesn't matter now, since it will take a hundred years before the term is corrected, if it is.)

I think, in theory, it should be a new chain type, even though the parts are mostly the same.
For example, a plane and car have roughly the same parts and functions except certain fundamental parts.
Now the car was invented first and then the plane, but we do not call planes "cars or flying cars" or such.

Yet, with cryptocurrency currently, we say each different proof of blank system are all using the "blockchain".
That would mean we are all saying, "my car has an engine" and "my plane has an engine", but that doesn't
describe what the intent or purpose of the engine is for that technology. It doesn't really make sense for
identification or understanding. Each different proof of blank system should have a different chain name
that distinguishes between the chains security/work mechanism.

For example:
PoW - blockchain (since it was first, otherwise it would be workchain) ?sha256hashchain?
PoS - stakechain
PoB - burnchain


But, if we use the term "blockchain" as just a superficial term, we shouldn't continue to say that Bitcoin invented
the "blockchain" because then it did not, but invented the proof of work chain, which was the first "blockchain"
until PoS was created, and then they co-opted the term, and now all other proof systems co-opted the term, so
everything is a blockchain now, and even recently, private centralized non-proof ledgers can also be a
blockchain if they have a block here and there that can chain here and there.

I think the term has be watered down to the point of irrelevance.

you suggest because trains invented the first combustion engine. we should not call car 'engines'  engines. simply because an engine doesnt define the difference between what a car, train or plane is used for.

blockchain is not the big special endpoint technology. it is just a small element.
what i am seeing is if we emphasise PoW as a pre-requisite then we are simply kissing Adam Backs ass for his 1997 'hashcash' more so then actually recognizing bitcoin as a combination of 10+ technology/concepts that uniquely came together.

oops did i forget to mention PoW came before bitcoin/blockchain, sorry thought that was common history knowledge

merging adams backs PoW with blockchain. is not defining anything. but shifting definitions to kiss someones ass

trying to add as many 'optional extra's into the banner blockchain doesnt help

[AgentofCoin]

Yes, I do not believe that Non-PoW coins are technically using the "blockchain", IMO.
(Though it doesn't matter now, since it will take a hundred years before the term is corrected, if it is.)

I think, in theory, it should be a new chain type, even though the parts are mostly the same.
For example, a plane and car have roughly the same parts and functions except certain fundamental parts.
Now the car was invented first and then the plane, but we do not call planes "cars or flying cars" or such.

Yet, with cryptocurrency currently, we say each different proof of blank system are all using the "blockchain".
That would mean we are all saying, "my car has an engine" and "my plane has an engine", but that doesn't
describe what the intent or purpose of the engine is for that technology. It doesn't really make sense for
identification or understanding. Each different proof of blank system should have a different chain name
that distinguishes between the chains security/work mechanism.

For example:
PoW - blockchain (since it was first, otherwise it would be workchain) ?sha256hashchain?
PoS - stakechain
PoB - burnchain


But, if we use the term "blockchain" as just a superficial term, we shouldn't continue to say that Bitcoin invented
the "blockchain" because then it did not, but invented the proof of work chain, which was the first "blockchain"
until PoS was created, and then they co-opted the term, and now all other proof systems co-opted the term, so
everything is a blockchain now, and even recently, private centralized non-proof ledgers can also be a
blockchain if they have a block here and there that can chain here and there.

I think the term has be watered down to the point of irrelevance.

you suggest because trains invented the first combustion engine. we should not call car 'engines'  engines. simply because an engine doesnt define the difference between what a car, train or plane is used for.

blockchain is not the big special endpoint technology. it is just a small element.
what i am seeing is if we emphasise PoW as a pre-requisite then we are simply kissing Adam Backs ass for his 1997 'hashcash' more so then actually recognizing bitcoin as a combination of 10+ technology/concepts that uniquely came together.

oops did i forget to mention PoW came before bitcoin/blockchain, sorry thought that was common history knowledge

merging adams backs PoW with blockchain. is not defining anything. but shifting definitions to kiss someones ass

I don't think trains invented the first combustion engine, I think it was placed on a "train".
So thus it was a "combustion engine locomotive or combustion engine train".
In this sense, due to the technology back then, they used the engine term to define the type of train.
Now that engines have been placed into multiple different systems, ex cars, trains planes, bikes, etc,
the engine part is dropped due to it being "obvious" to us. Kind of like when people said "motorized
cart", to distinguish from a regular "cart". The terms existed because it was a place holder for something
that was new. Eventually it was fleshed out and given a specific name.

Blockchain was the layman term for something that was new and not fully understood.
It was used to get average people to understand the Bitcoin system in a visual way.

You are saying you don't like my definition or interpretation that is fine, but I don't understand why you are
attacking me or accusing me of kissing Adam Back's ass. I don't know him, never talked to him, never heard
of anyone from Bitcoin or anything crypto prior to 2013. There is no reason for it. I am just voicing my opinion
on the definition of blockchain and what I think is proper based on my reasoning. Only time will tell whether I
am correct or wrong, but I still stand by it.

I believe that if we use the sterilized version of blockchain, then it doesn't really mean anything.
It could be anything, even the very financial systems that Satoshi created Bitcoin to be against.

IMO, blockchain was and should be a workchain, and in theory would then go into a subgroup
for different workchain types, like SHA256 and etc.

[franky1]

dont get me wrong i understand your premiss

but talking about adding PoW prerequisite
is like saying an engine has to runs on unleaded petroleum liquid instead of steam and wood, or jet fuel.

talking about public distribution prerequisite
is like saying an engine has to run on an open road, instead of railtracks or the sky.

here is mine

blockchain is not an end product. its just an engine
btc is a car that uses an engine. and runs on a open road network
hyperledger is a cross-state lines train that uses an engine. and runs on a corporate rail network

[Yakamoto]

People who understand Bitcoin realise that "blockchain" isn't really a technology, it's just a simple sequential file with linking between adjacent records. However, the word seems to have captured the imagination of the public, and there are many who have jumped on an expanded concept to push their own products.  There seem to be a lot of people who assume that "The Blockchain" is synonymous with Bitcoin, and this is far from the truth. We constantly see products being publicised with major omissions from the Bitcoin concept. - no proof of work, no cryptography, no distributed ledger, centralised control, no public blockchain access, no significant peer community and many others.

It would appear that "The Blockchain" is here to stay as a descriptive phrase, so how can we get some consensus as to the elements that are basic to the "technology"?

Blockchain is actually a good word for it, regardless of what the actual implications of the technology are. Based on the current applications of it and its current iterations, it is a "blockchain".

The elements basic to the technology are separated, verified data files that are pushed through every x amount of time, with a public database of all the information. That's most of it.

[AgentofCoin]

...
here is mine

blockchain is not an end product. its just an engine
btc is a car that uses an engine. and runs on a open road network
hyperledger is a cross-state lines train that uses an engine. and runs on a corporate rail network

My issue is I think that the "blockchain" is an end product only designed to facilitate a specific need.
That need is what Bitcoin wanted to originally do and currently does, which is many different things.
Currently, people are attempting to place "blockchain" into things that don't have any need.
This has led to the expansion of the definition of "blockchain", IMO.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any purpose to use "blockchain" outside of unregulatable things.

If you can not or should not trust others, than the "blockchain" is important.
I think the "blockchain" must be immutable, otherwise there is no point.
Under some current definitions of "blockchain", it does not need to be immutable either.

So then, what is the blockchain and why did Satoshi "invent" it?

[cpfreeplz]

"blockchain" isn't really a technology, it's just a simple sequential file with linking between adjacent records.

Have you looked in your Bitcoin core data folder? It is not implemented as a sequential file there.

But I do agree that people should realize that Bitcoin is not synonymous as Blockchain. This is obvious from the fact that shit coins also use blockchain technology.

Well clearly any shitcoin could even fork from bitcoins if they wanted to. That's even a bitcoin blockchain in a sense.

...
here is mine

blockchain is not an end product. its just an engine
btc is a car that uses an engine. and runs on a open road network
hyperledger is a cross-state lines train that uses an engine. and runs on a corporate rail network

My issue is I think that the "blockchain" is an end product only designed to facilitate a specific need.
That need is what Bitcoin wanted to originally do and currently does, which is many different things.
Currently, people are attempting to place "blockchain" into things that don't have a need.
This has led to the expansion of the definition of "blockchain", IMO.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any purpose to use "blockchain" outside of unregulatable things.

Like what? I'm not following what you're saying blockchains are being used for. All I've seen is banks making regulated & centralized blockchains for their currency they already have.