<p>There is no reason to not consider Git as a blockchain. Git is focused in a very particular (and important) set of assets: source code. The consensus in this case is manual, and we can consider that a transaction (commit) is accepted when it is merged into the release branch.
Actually, considering the number of transactions (commits), Git is by far the most successful blockchain.</p>
<p>Extracted from: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00892.pdf" rel="noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00892.pdf</a>
&quot;... ...We define“blockchain” and “blockchain network”, and then discuss two very different, well known classes of blockchain networks: cryptocurrencies and Git repositories...&quot;</p>
<p>See also next paper that explain why Google use a single monorepo as single source of truth (basically, as a blockchain).
<a href="https://research.google/pubs/pub45424/" rel="noreferrer">https://research.google/pubs/pub45424/</a></p>
Why is Git not considered a "block chain"?
<p>Git's internal data structure is a tree of data objects, wherein each objects only points to its predecessor. Each data block is hashed. Modifying (bit error or attack) an intermediate block will be noticed when the saved hash and the actual hash deviate.</p>

<p>How is this concept different from block chain?<br>
Git is not listed as an example of block chains, but at least in summaries, both data structure descriptions look alike: data block, single direction reverse linking, hashes, ...).</p>

<p>So where is the difference, that Git isn't called a block chain?</p>