Topic: Exactly how does BTC development go on, if the current group all quits or dies? (Read 349 times)

Thank you for those newbie friendly details, if I had rep to give you I would.

There will be new one who will continue the development and bitcoin is not having any issues at all for now so the transactions will be smooth even if the time taken for the development is more longer. Already most replies made it clear there is such thing called core developer, anyone who is willing to do can do it.

And once they die/leave, many would like to replace them voluntarily. This makes no worry for us if ever happens as it still continues to exist like the creator leaves and we all thinking that Bitcoin dies then but it finds different, we even growing and spreading more. The same thing we probably see and I could assume that it is even more appreciated as these replacements will give more and continue the development of the said project.

We can say it is knowing bitcoin adoption evolves and this will not go exclusively to the person who currently knows it, we know mainstream media is slowly reporting bitcoin and some other channels especially movies includes bitcoin name on some script so there's no surprise that we can see new generation of investors as years go past on it so we shouldn't worry about such things since whenever there's someone stop using it another huge numbers will come since there's a lot of opportunity on bitcoin.

putting it simply with 'core' having the major power play on what new updates can change the protocol. agreed en-mass, quickly.

if Wlad disappeared without passing on access to the core github repo. or github just froze access to the github repo of core. bitcoin will continue under its current version, without updates for a while.

whilst devs then re-organise under a new development tool platform and regain the trust of the community that their new platform access of sourcecode/new versions has no bugs/flaw/trojans.

this will take a little time for a new trusted power base to form which can have the same power to make updates the community follow en-mass (auto-majority).

bitcoin wont cease to function as a network. just a lengthy delay between new updates

There will always be new generation that can take their place. If someone leaves, another one will get in. So yes, for me, that's not a problem. There will always be another hungry young blood that will be interested to work in this group. It is like someone leaving his job. There will always someone that will apply for that vacant position. As long as humanity exists, I believe, there will always be interested people to work on this kind of endeavor. So don't worry about this situation because it may not happen at all.

It is an interesting question to think about. While abandonment of Bitcoin maintenance could happen if something catastrophic was to take place like an alien invasion or something similar, the likelihood of it happening is low. This is because as long as Bitcoin is valuable and it's worth more than $0 people are going to try to use it in whichever way they can be it through mining, consensus etc.

Bottom line is as long s there is value associated with Bitcoin the above scenario is. highly unlikely to take place.

I think, the cycle of bitcoin will not stop unless the world stops spinning as long as bitcoin is discussed there will definitely be a new successor to fill the void in one team,
we can see all this time sathosi no one knows who he is but BTC is still running towards the highest price
my friend, you don't have to worry now, I'm sure there will be many people who will save people who leave this bitcoin son as long as the world is still spinning and there is still time of day and night

There are so many developers, there are so many people contributing to the development of Bitcoins, at the same time they do get paid directly and indirectly as well which does make this a wonderful option for many people to hang in there and improve the quality of Bitcoin in every aspect that there is.
If someone leaves then the position opens up for new people, which I do think would be managed by the already existing/left developers of the core and therefore I do think that it's not a really big deal if the developers decide to leave since many people would work for Bitcoin undoubtedly, it has a very strong community in case you haven't noticed the Bitcointalk.org has been growing as well, therefore I do think that it's about the support and knowledge which is plenty in the community.

In general, bitcoin is a toy that a lot of people can't heartlessly give up, so the hypothesis of groups giving up bitcoin is very unlikely, the only exception is that those people disappear forever by death but as mentioned, bitcoin stalkers are ubiquitous on the crypto market map, once one group stops developing bitcoin, another will emerge, even competing for control of bitcoin. This is already a vast ocean, the water will continue to lift this boat to the ends of the horizon, no one knows a fixed destination, only knowing everything will be eternal activity.

First of all, these developers are people who are living in different locations of the world. Realistically, people are not going to quit at the same time, and they are also not going to die at the same time, so your imagination is quite wrong.

If someone, let’s assume that the leader in the group, decides that they would want to quit, what they are going to do is to announce it that they are quitting from being part of the job and would like to hand over to someone else. It is then a responsibility for them to look for the right person who can take over the job and be able to walk up to the standard that the community would expect from he or she. And if one of the developers should also die, there are others there to replace him or her. That’s just how it works.

Well I know Gavin gave the "key" to the Kingdom over to the Lead maintainer "Wladimir J. van der Laan" back in 2014.... so I guess he has a backup plan to give over the "key" to the next person IF something happens to him. This "key" is actually not a physical or virtual key, but just "rights" to privileged actions. (Like sending "emergency" broadcasts and certain repositories)

The succession plans/Disaster plans MUST be a secret .. because enemies of Bitcoin or crazy people will harm those people, IF they want to sabotage the experiment. (A single point of failure will be a target, if the enemy know who to take down)  

The OP seems to have created its concern from the following article :


If nothing else, they both announced that they would step back for a while due to other commitments, explaining that there are enough other developers and those who contribute to the project. A little fresh blood and new ideas will not hurt anyone

to be a node operater/ independant dev that just 'follows' the current rules, yea anyone can make their own node thats wrote slightly different but still follows the main rules.
free range sheep can be happy playing in fields saying they are free... untill the see the shepherd and the barking dog..

but wanting to contribute to an upgrade/change.. well thats not an "anyone can do that" thing
you hinted that you have to get wide co-operation with the other node operators and devs or end up forking as an altcoin.OR be an accepted dev on cores github, and hope they like you enough to add your change to cores RC. both not as easy as people think. many idea's in github get rejected just by personality conflicts.

that alone shows its not as easy as you think. and not an anyone can do it.

secondly most of the other nodes are centralised to the "core" brand. and the devs of the core brand dont just let any old 'contributor' play around with a release candidate as they please. the top 6 devs have authority to accept or reject anything contributors put in. so there is a circle of 6 devs as management. and then ontop of them there is a single guy that does the compiling and verification of the release candidate.
so their actually is a central hierarchy that you wish to dismiss.. heck even that top guy(Wlad) admits he has too much authority and is a central point of failure for the project.

so if the 'consensus majority' are brand core, and a release of an update by core solely leans on the decision and signing authority of Wlad. then yes there is control. of bitcoin
Wlad doesnt want to abuse his control. but that does not mean its not there

There's no one in "control" of bitcoin.  The code is open source. Anyone can contribute.   The nature of the system is consensus, so You could add to it.   Here's the downside.  The node operators have to agree to your alterations or they simply do not run your version and you get a hard fork or whats known as a altcoin(you ALSO can be a node operator no one is stopping you).   If you look out there you will see that there is 10,000 alt coins. 

Not all of those coins are forks of bitcoin some are original code(they ARE a copy of the idea).  Most of them fail.  Right at about 99.995% failure

According to Developer Nation, there were more than 20 million software developers at the start of 2021. This number is expected to reach 45 million by the year 2030. In other words, the current supply of software developers is slightly less than the total supply of bitcoin, but its growth is much faster. Moreover, unlike in Bitcoin, the supply of developers is not capped nor fixed algorithmically. All things considered, the shortage of bitcoin developers is unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future.

I can think of two reasons, besides an unrealistic one which implies the death of all the software developers who have ever been considering contributing to bitcoin, why bitcoin development may stop. The first one is the development of bitcoin was finally complete. No one wants any changes anymore, everyone is feeling okay about the current state of the network. The second reason the development may stop is that people may lose their interest in bitcoin which is equivalent to the death of bitcoin. Surprisingly, but if no one considers bitcoin useful as a medium of exchange anymore, it will lose its value regardless of how many useful features were added to it.

Anyone in the world can take over the code and continue developing it and releasing it. This is the beauty of being open source.
The community will then decide if they want to use the new releases or not, based on what has been changed in the code (which should be again, publicly available).

So the question, as @Lucius also pointed out, is a non-question, probably meant to scare newbies.


TL;DR: There's no real issue there. Period.

Oh no, another vector of attack on Bitcoin has opened up - as if there are only 1 or 2 developers on whom everything depends... Maybe the evil Chinese will create a covid-19 special strain that will attack only developers, then crypto miners, and finally all those who own BTC. But don't worry, after 22 doses of super-effective vaccines we will be safe from all possible strains of the virus

With an opensource project i think everyone could contribute to the project and keep the project developing.
I'm sure bitcoin devs community are solid and strong, the experts has already distributed and documented their knowledge about the developing best practice and patterns, so the new developers could continue the journey of development if the old devs are gone.
The technology has so much growth in recent years and i'm sure the future devs are gonna be better because it will always improving.

I think current teams already quit, but there will always be new teams coming. As long as crypto exists, people will pay attention to Bitcoin and contribute to its code.
Things have a way of working out when you least expect it

First thing you need to know is that there is no such thing as "official" bitcoin source code. Bitcoin is an open source protocol that many have attempted at implementing it and there are a handful of implementation of this protocol and one is the most popular known as bitcoin core also referred to as reference implementation.

Secondly, there isn't just one or two devs living in the same house that can die or go away together! There are at least half a dozen serious developers for each implementation with popular ones having dozens of serious contributors. They aren't even from the same country to be affected by the same "hypothetical disaster scenario". In reality one or two devs may go away which wouldn't change anything as there are lots of others to fill their place.

pretty much everyone relies on "core" as the repository of updates. and it only requires the main repo key holder and half a dozen people with merge authority to vanish without 'passing down' their key authority to new people to cause problems.

take the recruitment of Wladimir J. van der Laan becoming the maintainer in 2014.
currently wlad chairs/manages:
bitcoincore.org
bitcoin core github
development IRC
development mailinglist
and much more.

yes general contributors can suggest code updates but the 'merge' half dozen have the authority to accept/reject these suggestions. and then wlad has the main authority on the final release process of a node version with those merged updates, and he signs the release candidate and announces it to the wider dev group.

if he disappeared, then what can be done with the github repo becomes very limited. especially surrounding the release process of new updates.
if the half dozen with merge authority disappeared then wlad would have to recruit others to replace(IF wlad didnt disappear too).
 
here he explains.
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

..
due to the reliance and "trust" of the "core" repo. worse case that something did happen unexpectedly to the top half dozen people including wlad, the entire bitcoin ecosystem would need to find another repo of code and group of devs to trust. to become the new "core" repo of updates and bug solving. this can cause disruption of how long a new trusted release of an update can happen.

it was said over 7 years ago that people have different repos and anyone can release a node software which the community can use. but in years after, too many have trusted and relied on one repo, one brand of node, and now going back to an open network where no single brand should be trusted would take time and some debate and disruption.

also if we moved back to the scenario of not trusting one repo. that single repo cant then push forward soft/hard forks as easily as seen in 2017+. and we can get back to having the community of nodes truly use consensus to come to an agreeable way forward, rather than the trust that one repo is trusted to move forward for the benefit of the community.

ofcourse these consensus based updates are less straight forward(nov 2016 segwit attempt 1) to update the network than the mandated single repo(june 2017 segwit attempt 2) update model.

but then if an update would actually benefit the wide community, it would then get wide support for all the variable repo's to accept independently, rather than follow without choice. thus the update of the network would happen when acceptance reached a threshold by the masses.

It's really unrealistic that all current devs would stop contributing to the code. Covid would need to have like 99.9% lethality to kill all Bitcoin devs, so we'd have bigger problems than Bitcoin development if that happened.

Over the course of Bitcoin's history many people stopped contributing, like Mike Hearn or Gavin Andersen, and as you can see, it's not a problem. In the highly unlikely event of mass quit, the development would slow down for some time, but eventually it will get back on track.

Agreed, and Satoshi left without revealing his identity for some reason. What he left to the world is kept alive by number of contributors working around the world.

With mining we can see similar questions. If a miner leaves the network what will happen, will it affect the market/price of bitcoin. In reality the answer is simple, someone else will take the place.

Same as that we have other people to fill the empty space, there is more contributors waiting for the right time to be part of the core development.

Back in 2009, people could have asked: 'What will happen, if Satoshi, the creator, leaves the project?'
Satoshi left, what happened?
Bitcoin still exists.
The same would happen again.

a reasonable concern but you already know about the performance of bitcoin in running it while
I don't think it's that easy to happen considering that bitcoin developers are in various parts of the world and continue to grow

You have a good point from the common expectation or better to say the traditional thought of how financial institutions exist (e.g.), your appreciation is very valid because always by the traditional system, we have to see, feel the physical infrastructure and that there is a board of directors that puts and removes people according to their executive needs, but also the normal ones of life, old age, death or simply retirement.
With Bitcoin it happens that the physical infrastructure in similarity and the way in which people are removed and placed does not work the same, but I repeat your concern is very reasonable.

Maybe you should read and understand some of the things mentioned above, but I would recommend that you add reading about the consensus and among other topics, not always a specific topic can give you the answers if you do not have a consistent background in the line of learning about Bitcoin.

There is no "in charge" when it comes to the bitcoin network, rather it is built on consensus rule. There is a technical head of the development team, but it is all open source and any change would need the support of the community (other devs, nodes, miners) in order to get approved. Disagreement at this stage could lead to a soft fork or a hard fork in some cases.

Bitcoin core is not an elected position, but voluntary, if you have some programming skills, a passion for improving the network and resolving issues, you can be a part of it.

Literally, anyone can contribute if the current developer is all gone. To be realistic, they are all won't simultaneously be gone, I believe the code will be maintained by future developers who are trusted by the community or the current dev might vouch who are have an excellent understanding in regard to the codebase.

After all, the word of a small group you used actually isn't so small if you look just above your post. And if you look at the current Bitcoin repository, there are 842 contributors who at least once contribute to the codebase.

I think the OP is asking about what happens if the core Dev team is all gone.

its open source.  the codes already released.

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave. If they all decided
to do nothing from today Bitcoin would continue in its present state, there would be
no advancements but I cannot believe that nobody would replace them.

It would be really something if ALL developers left/stopped or were forced
to stop, like a long shot because Bitcoin is open source with hundreds of contributors.

https://bitcoin.org/en/development#code-review

And if there is uncertainty about who is in charge, then what happens? Do we have a plan in place now?

You can check it with Github. Get it on Bitcoincore.org and Bitcoin's Github

Please stop a moment to think of Dogecoin. Does it has good developments for years?

You can extropolate it to Bitcoin. With a strong network, huge communities, big adoption, Bitcoin will be fine even developers stop doing their works. It's fact.

Generally: without commits, bitcoin will stay secure for quite a long time but yes won't be actively developed.

A lot of commits to a lot of open source projects can come from randoms, there's just maintainers that merge code and decide what gets in to an official release.

There's probably a few devs with some btc to be inherited or put towards maintaining the code too which might be used to fund someone who takes over from them/works with them normally and can find a replacement.

You said it yourself. It's open source. People can contribute voluntarily.

If a decent percentage of the developers quitted or died, then the project would continue being open source, the nodes would continue share blocks and transactions etc. Thereafter, anyone who's willing to contribute can.

And how are we supposed to know that? I'm convinced there'll always be a team, isn't that enough?

You may notice that the developers leave and come. It is natural, there will be new ones that will win the trust of the community and their views on Bitcoin will be new, fresh and the commits will be useful and clean.

The official BTC source code is currently updated by a group of Devs who contribute to the open source Bitcoin project.

Exactly how does BTC development continue if the current group all quits or dies?
(For example) Who takes over the ghost ship if COVID and the next 19 variants get a lot worse?



Edit: Updated based on early responses:

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?