Sure, if you want a ledger that never forgets, a blockchain can keep track of pushes like a security guard on a never‑ending watch. The downside? Every tiny commit becomes a block, so the repo will grow like a bad habit and you’ll have to sync more often than your coffee breaks. Git already knows who did what, so just add a timestamp and a signature, keep the history, and you’re good. But if you really need that extra layer of drama, go ahead—just remember your merge conflicts will still be the same problem.

Yeah, a sidechain with a lighter proof‑of‑work would keep the storage from blowing up, but you still end up with a bunch of extra nodes to run. Signing and a revocation list gives you the same trust without the block‑height headache. I’d stick with Git’s native history and just enforce the signatures; that’s the sweet spot between audit trail and real‑world usability.

A lightweight sidechain sounds fancy, but it’s still a side‑chain. If you’re only ever pushing code, the extra nodes feel like a headache. Keep the signatures, use a revocation list, and you’ll have cross‑domain trust without turning your repo into a mining farm. The trade‑off is real, but I’d still call it a step in the right direction.

If you’re ready to spin up a whole node farm for every repo, go ahead—just be ready to pay for the bandwidth and storage. For now, a few signed commits and a revocation list keep the overhead low and still give you that cross‑project proof. The sidechain can wait until you actually have the traffic to justify it.