Cloning something like Chromium or Linux is already a multi-gigabyte affair without needing everyone to download everything ever committed to the system... and what happens when code needs to be taken down for copyright reasons?
I like more-decentralized Git, but I don't think this is necessarily the way to do it. The main problems today include plumbing around decentralized issue tracking and wikis, good Git web interfaces, etc.. Better P2P might make forking easier without centralization (Gittorrent?), but most serious projects probably won't find it difficult to obtain a VPS; data integrity and distributed authority, things the blockchain provides, are not really necessary at all.
That code can't be taken down for "copyright reasons" is a feature in my eyes, not a flaw. The best way to stand up to censorship and legal threats is to really not be able to comply, just like the best defense against torture is not to know (and much more so if your would-be agressors have a way of being sure you really don't know, and technology can do that against censorship.)
You should see some of the stuff that's in the Bitcoin blockchain... one day the community is going to have to make a decision on how to purge that data.
To be fair, right now it's all but impossible to entirely take code down for "copyright reasons" if incentive exists to pirate it. I don't know that this is necessarily a strong argument for using a blockchain in this way.
I fully agree, but isn't that roughly the same with Github?
Technically it's much much different of course, but if you commit some private keys/etc to Github, you have to invalidate everything used and assume that someone saw it, Google saw it, and it's cached in multiple places. Right?
While your criticisms are valid, I think the best way to consider developments like this is as if they were a new branch of math.
These are new things we can do with the logical/mathematical system. As of now, the best application may not have been found. Saying how these new discoveries are 'not useful' sort of confuses the spirit of exploration.
I like more-decentralized Git, but I don't think this is necessarily the way to do it. The main problems today include plumbing around decentralized issue tracking and wikis, good Git web interfaces, etc.. Better P2P might make forking easier without centralization (Gittorrent?), but most serious projects probably won't find it difficult to obtain a VPS; data integrity and distributed authority, things the blockchain provides, are not really necessary at all.