• Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That’s an incredibly wrong oversimplification.
    Git doesn’t have any consensus mechanisms, chaincode execution or ledger, is just a history tracker & manipulator. Neither Git or Hyperledger Fabric are centralized, they’re both distributed.
    Just because it’s for specialized non-financial related tasks using customizable specialized consensus mechanisms and often distributed only within a select few instead of being a big inefficient permissionless PoW/PoS craptocurrency blockchain with a bunch of clowns waisting energy mining nonsense doesn’t make it any less of a blockchain with smartcontacts and the works.

    with fancy buzzwords

    That’s literally just all blockchain technology ever.
    “Just blast them with buzzwords they don’t understand to distract from how fundamentally flawed our shit is and FOMO the shit out of them then rug pull every last dime from them” - NFTs.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Git doesn’t need consensus mechanisms because it’s “permissioned”, like Hyperledger. All actors are known and given permission by some entity to contribute.

      You can’t contribute to the Linux kernel unless your changes have been approved by someone trusted with permission. You cannot contribute to whatever Walmart is doing, because you haven’t acquired permission to do so.

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        And?
        Hyperledger Fabric still uses a consensus mechanism, and I promise you Walmart uses one. You can’t trust China with food safety.
        Permission is given out to various suppliers with various levels of trust.
        “Permissioned” in the context of Hyperledger Fabric just means all participants are known entities with identities managed by a Membership Service Provider (MSP), which is likely Walmart in this case and have access control governed by policies ensuring that only authorized actors can interact with the network and its resources. It doesn’t mean that a consensus mechanism isn’t used or needed.
        Shit, without using GPG and SSH to sign commits and outside identity verification mechanisms, you run the risk of git identity fraud.

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          In what way can blockchain ensure food safety? Just because participants use proof of work or whatever doesn’t mean the input data is more truthful. The oracle problem is a thing.

          • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            By providing transparency, auditability, and traceability throughout the food supply chain.
            Or in other words it prevents fraud via a tamper-proof system for data collection and monitoring. If the input data is falsified and people to get sick, it’s just a matter of plugging in the QR code for the contaminated product and within seconds you know the identity of the participant who authored the product and where it came from. The identities of all participants are already known before hand by the Membership Service Provider.
            Think of it like as if someone signed a malicious commit with their GPG key containing their name and address but with additional tamper-proofing pushed to an immutable repo, it’s not going to be very hard to trace back and slap a fine on whoever is responsible; effectively greatly reducing the Oracle problem.