You didn’t actually read the page you linked to, did you?
Let’s just jump to the conclusion:
This author believes it is technologically indefensible to call Fossil a “blockchain” in any sense likely to be understood by a majority of those you’re communicating with. Using a term in a nonstandard way just because you can defend it means you’ve failed any goal that requires clear communication. The people you’re communicating your ideas to must have the same concept of the terms you use.
(Emphasis mine)
Hint: a blockchain is always a Merkel tree, but a Merkel tree is not always a blockchain.
To clarify further, a blockchain requires some kind of distributed consensus. If you have two versions of the same blockchain, there must be a way to figure out which one of these is the one everybody else is following. In Bitcoin this is achieved with proof of work (i.e the version of the chain that has wasted most electricity).
If you don’t have distributed consensus, then you just have a git repo.
You didn’t actually read the page you linked to, did you?
Let’s just jump to the conclusion:
(Emphasis mine)
Hint: a blockchain is always a Merkel tree, but a Merkel tree is not always a blockchain.
To clarify further, a blockchain requires some kind of distributed consensus. If you have two versions of the same blockchain, there must be a way to figure out which one of these is the one everybody else is following. In Bitcoin this is achieved with proof of work (i.e the version of the chain that has wasted most electricity).
If you don’t have distributed consensus, then you just have a git repo.