But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility. Not inherently.
This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have.
To say that you can't rewrite history without changing commit IDs is like saying you can't prove a certain point without using the letter 'e'. Like… why are you even bringing up such a restriction?
> but blockchain means something different in people's mind
Right. Blockchain means "distributed ledger", which git is not. To say that git is one too is a technicality on the level of saying it's "wrong" to say "have your cake and eat it too", when it's actually "eat your cake and have it too".
It's not wrong, just not meaningful.
The only reason, in my opinion, to talk about the similarities between "blockchain" and git is to do exactly what this article does: to remove confusion in the mind of the listener that they are in any way meaningfully similar.
> I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.
Maybe in the future you'll mine the next cryptocurrency by proof of work in the form of "help this self-driving car that's stuck at an intersection it doesn't understand".