It&#x27;s fine to talk about non-Bitcoin blockchains, e.g. Litecoin and Dogecoin both have perfectly functional non-Bitcoin blockchains.  No one would argue that.  The issue is when you try to apply the word &quot;blockchain&quot; to a technology that has been neutered to the point that it no longer has proofs-of-work in it.  It&#x27;s not really a blockchain at that point because you&#x27;ve removed the main innovation that actually makes the blockchain idea useful.  That is what the commenter you responded to meant when he said:<p>&gt; I&#x27;m arguing that the bitcoin protocol without the Nakamoto consensus is not an improvement over conventional clearing technology<p>As an analogy, let&#x27;s say you design a car with no engine, but still insist on calling it a car because it looks like a car and it has most of the same parts.  It&#x27;s not really an illuminating discussion to keep debating whether or not it should be called a car so long as you understand the objection that the car-shaped-object is no longer useful for the purposes that people commonly associate cars with serving.