Topic: Bitcoin Development Team (Read 229 times)
If you just google the bitcoin project repository you will find the bitcoin GitHub and there you can see many people contributing to the project, commits, issues, etc... you can even fork the project and make your own changes and publish it with a different name. There are some people doing commits periodically to the project since a long time ago, but there is not any official dev or organization doing such development. Actually, that's one reason bitcoin decentralization, because that's not dependent on any team or organization for development and updates of the project.
Am I missing something? I feel that I do. 
You seem to be confusing the concept of "accepted by me" and the concept of "official". They are not the same thing.
There are many things that are "official" that are not agreed upon by those affected. These are official declarations by an authority that imposes it's will on others.
There are also many things that are agreed by many individuals that are in no way "official".
I understand “official” as an agreed statement. No?
The definition would likely be along the lines of an authoritative body, which being open source doesn't exactly fit that description. For example, presidents or world leaders are only seen as official because the government recognises they are, not specifically because they've been voted in, but because the government has accepted those votes. I wouldn't exactly describe it as an agreed statement, no. For example, I'm the end user of fast food, and you might too. However, because we think KFC has the best food, doesn't make it the official fast food of chicken. Horrible example, but we are end users to Bitcoin, and what we consider consensus can't be considered official. There is no authoritative body over Bitcoin, so technically nothing can be considered official.
Announced by whom? What prevents that person from announcing it BEFORE "the vast majority of users to use the code"?
Nothing. It is still an official release for those who will decide to upgrade it and neutral for the rest. Aren't we deciding autonomously in this consensus based scheme? A change will always be official for certain users and won't affect the rest directly.If Bitcoin Cash team decided to make a change, it wouldn't be unofficial to us; just neutral. If the Bitcoin developing team changed the source code, it'd be in our crisis to consider it official or not.
Am I missing something? I feel that I do.
Yes, I tried to emphasize it.
I don't think so, I think official is something that a lot of people just use incorrectly. What you are describing is what people have consensus agreed is the more appropriate path to take, but I don't think that makes it any more official than other suggestions.
I understand “official” as an agreed statement. No? Essentially, “official release” is a statement agreed from people and since they all manage with their way how Bitcoin will work, there isn't such thing as “unofficial release”.
I don't think so, I think official is something that a lot of people just use incorrectly. What you are describing is what people have consensus agreed is the more appropriate path to take, but I don't think that makes it any more official than other suggestions. Personally, I think official can only be used when there's a clear entity that controls it. For example, this forum theymos controls, therefore the rules that are posted by theymos can be described as unofficially. The Bitcoin code base isn't controlled by anyone, so nothing can truly be official. Though, there's obvious routes that might be better for the users, it doesn't necessarily mean its official.
have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)
yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles
This is common in open source development. The code proposals are peer reviewed, to make sure they actually contribute to the code. While you could argue that is centralisation, surely there has to be a point where we draw the line to prevent just any code being injected in the main development line. I think people, and in particular users on this forum, and Bitcoin supports treat centralisation as a bad thing, when its not necessarily bad for everything. There's definitely scenarios where centralisation makes sense, then other times like a currency it doesn't. have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)
yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles
If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.
Essentially, if they convince the vast majority of users to use their code, then it can be announced that Bitcoin is officially changed.
Announced by whom? What prevents that person from announcing it BEFORE "the vast majority of users to use the code"?
It is official that people decided to move differently than the developers proposed; it is official the signal for Taproot from the miners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.
Essentially, if they convince the vast majority of users to use their code, then it can be announced that Bitcoin is officially changed. It is official that people decided to move differently than the developers proposed; it is official the signal for Taproot from the miners.
Essentially, “official release” is a statement agreed from people and since they all manage with their way how Bitcoin will work, there isn't such thing as “unofficial release”.
For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization.
...
laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
...
laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
when it takes years for pooya to see his own contradictions in his own statements.. you got to wonder why it takes soo long
..
yes there are many 'projects' of light/spv/private wallets. but since ~2015-17 there has only been ONE repository centralising and leading the protocol decisions
It’s centralizing, yes. But do you prefer the development of the protocol to be chaotic, franky1? Open source projects also need some structure for more efficient development. In fact, the development of the Linux kernel is also centralized to it’s own repository, and it’s master Linus Torvalds.
Anyone can submit PRs to the Bitcoin Core github repo and anyone can discuss on the issues raised and the changes to the code. There are users with commit access to be able to merge commits into the repository and include it in the next RC, until it gets to the official release eventually. IIRC, there are various maintainers for the various components of Bitcoin Core and only a single lead maintainer for the entire repo.
Personally, I don't like the phrase "official release". It gives a sense that this is a centralized system where an authority declares what is "official" and everything else is "unofficial". In reality, anyone can clone the source code. They can then become the "lead developer" of their copy of the source. So long as their code remains 100% compatible with the current reference implementation regarding the consensus rules, they can add any other features they like. If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.
I think you can safely assume that most of the people who attended the taproot activation meeting via IRC channel (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Taproot_activation_proposal_202102) are part of the core team.
For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization. Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol that has many developers contributing to its improvement with lots of different open source projects.
For example SomberNight is a bitcoin developer who is contributing to Electrum (the SPV implementation of Bitcoin protocol). laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
Each project has its own "lead" developer who controls the github repository and holds the keys to let changes be merged into the source code or not. But anyone with or without programming knowledge can make a contribution, whether it is just bug report or opening pull requests with major changes.
Yes, to that extent the maintenance and security of the Bitcoin blockchain network is solely voluntary, and because of this nature the people who carry out all the work are independent. Yes, there might be social online communities but its users are using aliases.For example SomberNight is a bitcoin developer who is contributing to Electrum (the SPV implementation of Bitcoin protocol). laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
Each project has its own "lead" developer who controls the github repository and holds the keys to let changes be merged into the source code or not. But anyone with or without programming knowledge can make a contribution, whether it is just bug report or opening pull requests with major changes.
It is a great project which demonstrates that people are willing to chip in with their knowledge and skills in their spare time. This is what arguably makes Bitcoin decentralized.
I am curious if there is a list of the current development team for bitcoin. I am not sure if that is something that they keep private or if there is a list out there somewhere of who the developers are. I am also curious if there is a lead developer for bitcoin, or if it just a team at this point and there is no lead like Gavin used to be?
As @mk4 mentioned about development of course everything you need is available on bitcoin core Github and also provides quality code, even any developer can also contribute to the project, of course this is very useful and good for you, especially if you are interested in learning more about bitcoin technical details.
Anyone can submit PRs to the Bitcoin Core github repo and anyone can discuss on the issues raised and the changes to the code. There are users with commit access to be able to merge commits into the repository and include it in the next RC, until it gets to the official release eventually. IIRC, there are various maintainers for the various components of Bitcoin Core and only a single lead maintainer for the entire repo.
I am curious if there is a list of the current development team for bitcoin. I am not sure if that is something that they keep private or if there is a list out there somewhere of who the developers are.
They don't keep it private, but that isn't much of a concern. There isn't a single owner, no. It is a Github organization and if something that would affect the client is proposed, these are the first people who must come into an agreement. I think that every change is being taken very democratically (not necessarily in the code).Shouldn't it be somewhat of a good thing? Anyone can make proposals but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to approve them. And we really don't want the Bitcoin Core software to be having software modifications left and right.
Save your breath...
They have a Github, also if you are already there, try to donate to them because I think that this is their full time job, core development for bitcoin. The only one that I know that's in this forum that is part of the team is @achow101.
have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)
yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)
yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles
Shouldn't it be somewhat of a good thing? Anyone can make proposals but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to approve them. And we really don't want the Bitcoin Core software to be having software modifications left and right.
Bitcoin is an open source software and as such any body can contribute to the system.
have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)
yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles
If you're specifically referring to Bitcoin core developers, then you can simply take a look at the contributors list on the Bitcoin Core GitHub repository, and just filter out the date range for what best fits your definition of "current".
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
EDIT: Had to mention this. If you're making good money inside or outside the cryptocurrency industry, please don't forget to support the developers: https://bitcoindevlist.com/
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
EDIT: Had to mention this. If you're making good money inside or outside the cryptocurrency industry, please don't forget to support the developers: https://bitcoindevlist.com/
Bitcoin is an open source software and as such any body can contribute to the system. If you are a developer you too can contribute to Bitcoin existence but having a list of bitcoin developers is something you might never get because it's rather better been anonymous to avoid altering it's decentralized nature.
There is no officially recognized developers for Bitcoin but we have volunteers who are working for its development. This scenario is unlike what we usually have in Ethereum and other popular blockchain network...which in fact raise the question on centralization and decentralization. Now, the question is: Is this set-up better than what alts have or do we still prefer something that has clear and visible leadership on it?
Jump to: