The point that seems to be missing is that what we have works.
As in "If it's not broken, don't fix it"
People may not like the way things are done, but as of now the system works.
Bugs get fixed, updates get done, and so on.
Some people may not like the way they are going (segwit, Ordinals, whatever) and you are free to fork off and make your own coin and try to get traction for it.
See how well it works out for you. Look at BCH as an example. It's actually a good example since a bunch of people didn't like the direction BCH was going and forked it again to ecash. See how far those got....
Having a small group that can actually merge the updates & changes while having a bunch of people do work under them is the way most large programming jobs are done.
Or do you think any programmer at Microsoft or Apple can just push a magic button and have their code merged as part of Windows / MacOS.
-Dave
Topic: Can the Bitcoin Core developers make crucial changes? - page 2. (Read 590 times)
Quote
what should happen is multiple brands have proposals
It is the case now, because you have a lot of different altcoins. The main problem with them, is that they don't follow the heaviest chain of SHA-256 hashes, and they abuse 21 million coins limit, by creating new coins, not connected with Bitcoin in any way.Quote
where not one single brand wins
In that case, you would have more than one competing chain. And then, you can have for example three branches, where for example chain A has 6 million BTC, chain B has 7 million BTC, and chain C has 8 million BTC. Because having no single winner means, that some group will say for example "we want Segwit", and another group will say "we don't want Segwit". The same with Taproot, the same with Lightning Network, and the same with OP_CAT, and every other proposal. And then, the only case, where there is no single winner, is when every group can enforce it at the same time.Quote
but the best idea wins and all brands then follow
There is no way to find out, which way is "the best way". For example, someone may argue, that "Segwit won, and all brands then followed". Then, you may disagree, by saying, that "it is not the best idea". However, in consensus rules, you don't have "the best chain". You only have "the heaviest chain", which means, that some idea may be worse than others, and still win (see: Ordinals; it was possible to reject them, but the idea of stopping them didn't reach 51%, and now only some pools reject them, while others endorse them, and have no plans of turning them off).Quote
core dont want to use the byzantine general fault solution
The first step to change anything, is to know, what is available. So, which alternative client would you recommend? Where it can be downloaded? 
contributors make REQUESTS but the maintainers do the merging of those requests or reject them. and yes the maintainers can force merge their own code without anyone else. in short it needs the maintainers to decide. they govern bitcoin code
most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
Sounds like bitcoin is kinda centralized to a handfull of maintainers who hold the keys. What happens if they all die in a car crash or become dictators?most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
Aside from what @franky1 said, different Bitcoin full node software also exist. Those software usually follow Bitcoin Core steps, but if they think changes or addition on Bitcoin Core which affect Bitcoin network or protocol is unreasonable, they could just ignore it.
contributors make REQUESTS but the maintainers do the merging of those requests or reject them. and yes the maintainers can force merge their own code without anyone else. in short it needs the maintainers to decide. they govern bitcoin code
most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
Sounds like bitcoin is kinda centralized to a handfull of maintainers who hold the keys. What happens if they all die in a car crash or become dictators?most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
yep the centralisation risk is not the propaganda fear of 'not many nodes exist'.. its actually how many nodes are too reliant on only one brand.
as for the car crash hypothetical, if all core devs died in a car crash then the core brand dies and people then rush to create a new github and fight to win trust of a new brand/group of devs that were not in a car crash. where this new brand suddenly gets to offer proposals for new protocol changes which people blindly follow
however the maintainers of core dont live in the same house and dont carpool to the same office together (unless they were at a convention/conference they all turned up to, that offered a minibus transport they all got on) so odds are if one died the other maintainers choose a replacement and just revoke privileges of the deceased one, and core continues governing the protocol
..
what should happen is multiple brands have proposals where not one single brand wins, but the best idea wins and all brands then follow.. but yea, core dont want to use the byzantine general fault solution. they prefer to keep the master general option
contributors make REQUESTS but the maintainers do the merging of those requests or reject them. and yes the maintainers can force merge their own code without anyone else. in short it needs the maintainers to decide. they govern bitcoin code
most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
Sounds like bitcoin is kinda centralized to a handfull of maintainers who hold the keys. What happens if they all die in a car crash or become dictators? most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
As far as I understand, in theory, major changes could be proposed by Bitcoin Core developers (which actually has more than 900 people in it not just 5, as many people has mentioned in other replies), but even in the case when most of them are in support of a decision, they can't push it through. All in all, any modification to Bitcoin must achieve broad consensus among the greater Bitcoin community including miners, node operators, and users. Since Bitcoin is designed to be a decentralized model, no single group can force an outcome on it. For any modification or change to be implemented and take effect, it has to be adopted by a considerable number of nodes on the network.
So, while the majority of developers could technically force changes, those changes still must be accepted by the global Bitcoin community through some consensus mechanism, in a decentralized manner such that no single group can force key changes by themselves.
So, while the majority of developers could technically force changes, those changes still must be accepted by the global Bitcoin community through some consensus mechanism, in a decentralized manner such that no single group can force key changes by themselves.
contributors make REQUESTS but the maintainers do the merging of those requests or reject them. and yes the maintainers can force merge their own code without anyone else. in short it needs the maintainers to decide. they govern bitcoin code
most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
most contributors are not helping with code, but instead just spell checkers or translators. when you look at whom helms the code changes of the big features you see the same short list of names that do the real coding
in short contributors do not have the same power, access, privilege or rank of control as the maintainers
..
as for if another brand of a full node has equal chance of making a protocol change vs how easily core changing the protocol is just accepted without any notice/conflict/consent. well in recent years core have taken control and other brands of nodes if changing the protocol are treated as altcoin proposals, not bitcoin proposals. everything these days needs to go through the core maintainers governance to change bitcoins protocol
Van der Laan voluntarily gave up his access to the bitcoin client software after being at the helm for more than nine years. As the second successor to Bitcoin’s mysterious inventor Satoshi Nakamoto, he was one of the few individuals having final commit access to Bitcoin Core’s GitHub repository.
Nakamoto first owned this administrator key and then transferred it to Gavin Andresen. When Andresen, who received direct instruction from Nakamoto on maintaining bitcoin’s code, stepped down from the project nine years ago, Van der Laan took over. Van der Laan has played the lead role in maintaining all aspects of Bitcoin’s development for even longer than Satoshi. He led all operations involving bug fixes, code reviews, upgrades, software maintenance, and dispute resolution.
Only five Bitcoin Core maintainers remain. With Van der Laan’s departure, Bitcoin’s development will now be steered by five people: Hennadii Stepanov, Michael Ford, Andrew Chow, Marko Falke, and Gloria Zhao.
Each is responsible for an aspect of Bitcoin; for example, Stepanov maintains the network’s graphical user interface, while Ford oversees the build system.
Gloria Zhao, the only woman in the maintainers’ team, writes and reviews the code that governs Bitcoin’s transaction validation process. Andrew Chow is in charge of programming for crypto wallets, which allow investors to store their bitcoin, while Marco Falke focuses on testing.
Together, these coders keep Bitcoin’s digital ledger up to date on its network’s thousands of computers. They must ensure that the software remains compatible with the latest versions of operating systems like Windows or MacOS and that it keeps up with transaction volumes.
Many of the cryptocurrency’s proponents claim that its current value and future potential are partly in the hands of these maintainers.
https://crypto.news/bitcoin-core-has-only-5-developers-left-as-key-maintainer-departs/
Nakamoto first owned this administrator key and then transferred it to Gavin Andresen. When Andresen, who received direct instruction from Nakamoto on maintaining bitcoin’s code, stepped down from the project nine years ago, Van der Laan took over. Van der Laan has played the lead role in maintaining all aspects of Bitcoin’s development for even longer than Satoshi. He led all operations involving bug fixes, code reviews, upgrades, software maintenance, and dispute resolution.
Only five Bitcoin Core maintainers remain. With Van der Laan’s departure, Bitcoin’s development will now be steered by five people: Hennadii Stepanov, Michael Ford, Andrew Chow, Marko Falke, and Gloria Zhao.
Each is responsible for an aspect of Bitcoin; for example, Stepanov maintains the network’s graphical user interface, while Ford oversees the build system.
Gloria Zhao, the only woman in the maintainers’ team, writes and reviews the code that governs Bitcoin’s transaction validation process. Andrew Chow is in charge of programming for crypto wallets, which allow investors to store their bitcoin, while Marco Falke focuses on testing.
Together, these coders keep Bitcoin’s digital ledger up to date on its network’s thousands of computers. They must ensure that the software remains compatible with the latest versions of operating systems like Windows or MacOS and that it keeps up with transaction volumes.
Many of the cryptocurrency’s proponents claim that its current value and future potential are partly in the hands of these maintainers.
https://crypto.news/bitcoin-core-has-only-5-developers-left-as-key-maintainer-departs/
Quote
Can they make crucial changes to the Bitcoin network if they want to?
Anyone can make changes. It doesn't matter. What really matters is: who runs your software?For example, I shared the code for mining coins on a CPU in testnets. And guess what: some people applied all of my changes, including accepting blocks, up to 20 hours in the future. As a result, some nodes saw a chain reorganization of more than 100 blocks, because if you have a lot of CPU-mined blocks, then the chainwork is similar in different chains.
And then, I was quite surprised, when I saw ASIC-mined blocks in my fork. But well, CPU miners only provide some content for testnets, and then, ASIC runners can decide, which chain they want to build on top of, and that chain then becomes real, when the time of the network will reach the time put inside blocks.
So, am I a testnet developer now, because some nodes adopted my changes?
You sure did well, but, yeah, you can't be considered a tester in that regard. Only a helper for testers
Thanks for sharing your experience. Never did something similar to your case.
If you are a Bitcoin user, you are a maintainer too because you make transactions, spend fees to keep the network alive.
Oh, that's me. I constantly make transfers in the Bitcoin network and not only. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Why choose only one Bitcoin when there are other coins, tokens? Many people just don't know about the existence or just don't trust? What's going on? What to do?Naturally, there are many more Bitcoin network developers than 5. It has already become a truly grandiose project that has proven its viability and effectiveness to the entire world. Entire countries cannot be mistaken about this when they have adopted crypto at the official level.
No, no developer can make a significant change to the Bitcoin Blockchain. Also, as everyone else said, it's open source. You can contribute to it, so the number you came with (5 Devs) is very stupid and irrelevant to this conversation. Here is a screenshot of the GitHub Repo of number of contributors. And it's surely above 5... (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin)
I mean the maintainers.
If you are a developer who contribute to Bitcoin Core Developments, like code it, report bug, you are one of maintainers.If you are a translator who contribute to Bitcoin Core, you are a maintainer.
If you are a Bitcoin node operator, you are a maintainer of Bitcoin blockchain decentralization.
If you are a Bitcoin user, you are a maintainer too because you make transactions, spend fees to keep the network alive.
Surely you can find more than 5 people are doing one of these maintaining contributions.
The short answer is no.
Any Bitcoin developer including Satoshi can't make crucial changes just because they want, because in order the proposal to be implemented, they need to get votes by majority of developers.
Just like in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not all of them were accepted.
Any Bitcoin developer including Satoshi can't make crucial changes just because they want, because in order the proposal to be implemented, they need to get votes by majority of developers.
Just like in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not all of them were accepted.
Quote
Can they make crucial changes to the Bitcoin network if they want to?
Anyone can make changes. It doesn't matter. What really matters is: who runs your software?For example, I shared the code for mining coins on a CPU in testnets. And guess what: some people applied all of my changes, including accepting blocks, up to 20 hours in the future. As a result, some nodes saw a chain reorganization of more than 100 blocks, because if you have a lot of CPU-mined blocks, then the chainwork is similar in different chains.
And then, I was quite surprised, when I saw ASIC-mined blocks in my fork. But well, CPU miners only provide some content for testnets, and then, ASIC runners can decide, which chain they want to build on top of, and that chain then becomes real, when the time of the network will reach the time put inside blocks.
So, am I a testnet developer now, because some nodes adopted my changes?
Don't know where you're getting the "5 developers" part from. There were 79 contributors to the latest release of Bitcoin Core. So far, 963 people have made contributions to Bitcoin Core in all.
I mean the maintainers. From my understanding Bitcoin Core has only 5 developers. Can they make crucial changes to the Bitcoin network if they want to?
Only 5 developers, really?The list is more than 5 https://bitcoindevlist.com/
And you can contribute to Bitcoin Core developments too. https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/contribute/
Don't know where you're getting the "5 developers" part from. There were 79 contributors to the latest release of Bitcoin Core. So far, 963 people have made contributions to Bitcoin Core in all.
From my understanding Bitcoin Core has only 5 developers. Can they make crucial changes to the Bitcoin network if they want to?
Jump to: