Every git repository counts as a blockchain by that definition.
(By the way, I often see these two points in the same thread: "blockchains should be replaced with centralized SQL databases" and "Git repositories are just like blockchains" which makes me wonder if Git repositories also ought to be replaced with centralized SQL databases.)
Blockchains whose tokens are subject to the authority of a central issuer anyway should be replaced with centralized SQL databases. Bitcoin/namecoin/etc. can't be replaced with centralized databases. FBCoin can, as can any blockchain that is supposed to track meatspace resources(since physical resources are subject to the authority of the local government/men with guns anyway).
> Git repositories are just like blockchains
Nope, I don't consider this to be true. Blockchains are supposed to have decentralized consensus and allow arbitrary nodes to propose changes.
Turning it into a Blockchain makes it public, which is a significant advantage.
Which is oe of the reasons my eyes roll so hard when "business types" and "idea guys" decide they need to explain "blockchain" to me, but have never heard of Merkel Trees...
Git repos are absolutely Blockchains!
People don't understand how simple the concept of Blockchain is.
Git also supports signed commits.
In git you use other external signals to determine which fork to select in the case of diverging histories.
With blockchain, all participants are untrusted, so you just go with the longest chain by convention, and rely on the fact that it’s extremely difficult to build such a chain.