Topic: So How does Bitcoin Development Happen Anyway (Read 898 times)

Bitcoin development is an open and decentralized process that involves multiple stakeholders, including developers, miners, users, and businesses. Unlike traditional software projects that have a centralized authority or company overseeing development, Bitcoin's development is driven by an open-source community. Here's an overview of how Bitcoin development happens:

1. Open-Source Nature of Bitcoin
Bitcoin Core: Bitcoin's primary software implementation, Bitcoin Core, is open-source. This means that anyone can view, modify, and contribute to the source code, which is publicly available on platforms like GitHub.
Developers Worldwide: Bitcoin development is not controlled by a single entity. Instead, developers from around the world contribute to improving the network by suggesting code changes, proposing upgrades, and fixing bugs.
2. Proposal System (BIPs - Bitcoin Improvement Proposals)
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs): Significant changes or new features to Bitcoin are proposed through a system called BIPs. BIPs are technical documents that outline proposed upgrades or changes to the Bitcoin protocol.
Types of BIPs:
Standards Track BIPs: Affecting the consensus rules or network protocols (e.g., SegWit, Taproot).
Informational BIPs: Providing general information or recommendations without enforcing changes.
Process BIPs: Changes to the processes around Bitcoin development itself.
Submission Process: Anyone can submit a BIP, but it requires detailed technical specifications and a clear rationale for the change. These proposals are discussed openly by the community and reviewed by Bitcoin Core developers.
3. Code Contributions
Contributing to Bitcoin Core: Developers who want to improve Bitcoin Core can contribute code to the open-source project. This is done by submitting "pull requests" on GitHub. These pull requests are reviewed by other developers to ensure the changes are secure, efficient, and beneficial.
Review Process: Experienced developers and maintainers review the proposed changes to make sure they don’t introduce bugs or vulnerabilities. This review process can be slow, as security is a top priority.
Consensus for Major Changes: For significant changes to Bitcoin, there needs to be broad consensus within the community, including developers, miners, and node operators. If the change affects the consensus rules, miners and nodes must upgrade to the new version for the change to take effect.
4. Testing and Validation
Unit Testing: Proposed changes go through extensive testing to ensure they don’t break any existing functionality or introduce security risks. This includes unit tests, integration tests, and stress tests.
Testnet: Before being implemented on the main Bitcoin network, changes are often tested on Bitcoin’s testnet, a sandbox environment that mimics the live Bitcoin network without real financial consequences.
5. Decentralized Decision-Making
No Central Authority: No single entity controls Bitcoin development. Decisions are made through community consensus. If there is significant disagreement over a proposed change, it could lead to a “fork,” where two versions of Bitcoin exist (e.g., Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash).
Miners, Nodes, and Users: In addition to developers, miners, full node operators, and Bitcoin users all play a role in development. For example, if a consensus rule change is proposed (like SegWit or Taproot), miners need to signal their support by updating their software.
6. Governance by Consensus
Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks:
Soft Forks: Backward-compatible changes that allow non-upgraded nodes to still participate in the network, even if they don’t implement the new features.
Hard Forks: Non-backward-compatible changes that require all nodes and miners to upgrade to the new software. A hard fork can lead to a split in the network, creating a new cryptocurrency (e.g., the Bitcoin Cash hard fork in 2017).
Consensus Mechanisms: Proposals for major upgrades (especially consensus changes) need broad consensus within the Bitcoin community. This involves discussions in forums, on GitHub, and sometimes even real-world voting mechanisms like signaling from miners.
7. Development Funding
Voluntary Contributions: Most Bitcoin Core developers are unpaid volunteers, though some receive funding from companies or organizations that benefit from Bitcoin’s growth (e.g., Blockstream, Chaincode Labs).
Grant Programs: Various organizations, such as the Human Rights Foundation and cryptocurrency exchanges, provide grants to developers working on Bitcoin infrastructure.
8. Ongoing Improvements
Protocol Upgrades: Bitcoin continues to evolve, with protocol upgrades improving scalability, privacy, and security. For example, the Segregated Witness (SegWit) upgrade in 2017 increased block capacity and improved transaction malleability, while Taproot (2021) enhanced privacy and smart contract functionality.
Layer 2 Solutions: Bitcoin development also includes improvements outside the main blockchain. The Lightning Network is an example of a Layer 2 solution designed to enable faster and cheaper transactions while reducing congestion on the main blockchain.

I did read his post and I'm thankful for his post and yours as well.  If I didn't understand something it's probably because I'm new. 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, because most actual mining is done by the owners of the mining pools and the owners of the mining pools:

1. Generally trust the Bitcoin Core Developers
2. Want to be using the most up to date mining software
3. Don't want the risk of being left behind or work not being valid because their software is old compared to the owners of the other mining pools

Therefore, the mining pool owners generally upgrade to the latest software.

If I'm reading you correctly, because most of these updates did not involve that great of changes to the base software most mining pool owners did not need to stop mining after an update?

However, my base question was not answered.  When updating the software, does one have to stop mining?

Thanks,

Bill

The developers are developers because people trust them.  Anyone can fork the software and people can choose to use their version or not.

Please read gmaxwell's post carefully.  He answers most of your questions if you pay attention.

There are different versions of the core software because it is under development.  But there is only one block chain.  So far, there have been no changes to the block chain rules that would exclude any previous versions of the software.  No users of the system have ever needed to upgrade (I still run a pre-0.4 node for fun).  Miners* need to be more careful and should generally be running fairly current versions since it is possible for them to create a block that other miners will refuse to build on.

* And by miners, I mean people that use their node to generate new blocks.  Most "miners" are really "mining pool users", and the blocks they work on come from pool operators.  The pool operators, of course, use their nodes to generate blocks, so they are "miners" in this sense.

Thank you for your replies.

So, if the Bitcoin Foundation plays no direct role, what about the Core Bitcoin Developers?  I hear tidbits about versions. 

5. How do these versions of Bitcoin get implemented? 

6. Who has to install these versions?

7. What happens to miners or others who do not use these updated versions?  Are they shut out of the system?

The Bitcoin Foundation plays no formal role in the development of Bitcoin. The foundation is a 501(c)(6) professional organization created fairly recently (last year) in order to help sponsor and promote Bitcoin.  If the foundation did have control over Bitcoin it would be very bad indeed, as they could be ordered to abuse that control. Fortunately, they do not. If you wanted you could start your own Bitcoin foundation.

Bitcoin is, foremost, an autonomous zero trust system. Every Bitcoin node such as the reference client software (Bitcoin-QT), run by anyone who wants to,  independently validates that the messages they receive from the network conform to all the rules written in the software they trust no one. As such, "majority" is generally irrelevant in terms of the system's rules. They cannot be violated by just a simple majority of anything... though if some kind of super-majority of Bitcoin _users_ wanted to adopt different rules, they could: they would arguably be using another system though.

Unfortunately, there is no way to decide the ordering of events in a decentralized and purely autonomous manner, so Bitcoin uses a computational majority to order transactions via mining... Ordering is powerful but the inability to control more than ordering is believed to be part of the incentive balance that keeps mining mostly honest.

As of yet, we've (the Bitcoin community) never really changed the system in a way that wasn't backwards compatible with the earlier versions at least at the rules level— save one exception which was that versions prior to 0.8 would non-deterministically refuse to validate some blocks processing large numbers of transactions and fixing this bug was a not-completely-backwards-compatible change to the system rules.

It's possible to add new restrictions to the rules without breaking backwards compatibility (e.g. transactions not consistent with the new rules are just ordered infinitely far into the future) and this has been done a couple times to correct bugs and provide some new functionality. To make these changes safely it requires a decisive super-majority of mining to be enforcing the new restrictions. Fortunately the protocol itself can coordinate this by miners signaling with a bit in their blocks that they will start enforcing the rules when— say— 750 of the last 1000 blocks have the signal bit.

Anyone who wants to can develop Bitcoin software, and many people— advisably other otherwise— have.

I've been thinking about this one for awhile.  How does bitcoin development actually happen? 

1. How does the bitcoin foundation get agreement from all the miners to implement their changes to bitcoin?

2. When this agreement happens, does the network have to shut down?

3. How quickly does it take to implement these "developer changes"

4. If an entity controls 51% of the network, do they get to be the "developer" ?