"A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). [etc]"
Do you have a definition that git doesn't fit into (without getting too pedantic, e.g., git being a DAG of records rather than a list)?
I don't understand what your question is. Are you saying that all blockchains must be turing complete and that git isn't therefore it's not a blockchain?
I didn't mean it as a question. What I meant was that blockchains can be Turing complete and git doesn't have that level of sophistication as a system.
I didn't think blockchains had to be turing complete. What definition do you use that requires that? I can't see that the original bitcoin paper implies such a requirement, but maybe it can be derived somehow.
Sure it wasn’t in Satoshis paper but most of the largest block chains are now essentially virtual machines and transactions can be arbitrary code written for those VMs, where the fee is the computational cost for the nodes to run that code.
I still don't understand where this is going. If you're saying git is not a blockchain because it's not turing complete that means all blockchains must be turing complete. I don't think that is true.
