Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin Core developer Wladimir van der Laan said that Microsoft’s acquisition of GitHub should spur discussion about moving the Bitcoin code repository off GitHub and to an independently-hosted platform. Full article on CCN (https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-core-dev-btc-source-code-should-be-removed-from-github-eventually/)

I would like to see it happen today rather than tomorrow, but how realistic is a quick move away from Github? Is there any sort of consensus mechanism within the Bitcoin Core team that should do its work before a move happens? People quite often think that it's just a matter of switching platforms, but there are so many variables that have to be taken into consideration, that it might take a while. I read that there isn't (yet) much of a hurry to move away in the very short term. It's definitely a shock that we have to go through this, but it happened -- we can't change the past, but we can change the future, and that in a more decentralized way.

Since they do made such move im sure they are already aware on the things that might happen later on and as being said there would be lots of things or factors should really take into consideration.Such migration or changes would really nees time but im still glad on what they are trying to do here.Even i didnt expect for MS to made such move and now BTC devs are making their evacuation which i do see a right thing to be done.

It actually takes no time at all to migrate to another platform. It took me minutes to migrate my repos to Gitlab. Easy. The sooner all cryptos get out of dodge the better.

Microsoft.... :D :D

Anyone thinking here that this is also one of the major reasons why Microsoft wants to acquire GitHub? Because anything found within GitHub is also theirs and if the reason why they are buying GitHub is that one I don't think GitHub as an option t remove Bitcoin's source code off the table. Although if this news gains traction I do think this can give us some wild speculative plays.

Why is there still no unique quality repository for cryptocurrencies projects? This is a great opportunity. Maybe something with a blockchain itself for some extra functions like save for eternity. That makes easy searching for copies of code in other projects, I am looking at you TRON, ranking of the most active. Of the most innovative, teams etc.

Someone actually came up with the idea of decentralizing Github a few years ago & created a repo:

https://github.com/cjb/GitTorrent

Blog:  https://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/

Interesting. Maybe someone reads this & decides to carry on with the development......it's a bit above my paygrade.

The problem with having an immutable ledger do its work is that you can't change anything. In all cases they just need to decentralize their current servers that run Git (Git and Github isn't the same) and they should be fine.

Gitlab is doing the exact same thing as Github, and some say it's even better, so we'll see how things play out and what option the Core devs will go for. It's at least a good wake up call. It definitely speeds things up a notch.

Microsoft thought they made a good buy, but Github is as replaceable as Microsoft itself is. I wonder what Microsoft's reaction will be if the CEO is being asked why projects are migrating to other platforms.  ;D

Hopefully the removal of BTC source code to another platform happens sooner than later before Microsoft turns GitHub into another Codeplex phenomenon!

Makes sense, but Github is just as much a for profit company as Microsoft is.  Andreessen Horowitz, ie Mr. Circle and by extension Mr. Goldman Sachs, put $100 million in several years ago.

Bitcoin should've migrated a long time back if they felt that strongly about it.

I'm not sure what the big difference is really. "No longer going to pay for this when it’s just another Microsoft tax," Wladimir said. Seems a bit over the top to me.


What exactly is going to happen under Microsoft's ownership? What do you mean by "get out of dodge?"

Microsoft eventually turns anything code related to shit in some way or another due to the corpro-idiot-speak from the lawyers and suits that ultimately steers the ship over there in Redmond, so they should look at moving.

The biggest issue would seem to be establishing anew the web-of-trust automated signed-commits, binary-building and signing mechanisms. Doable but maybe a ball-ache to unravel especially if some opportunists use the timing as another excuse to shove their deranged 'governance' agenda. Probably the core devs need to establish now on another platform as code-signing authors in parallel and migrate over in time ... in preparation for when the inevitable changes in Terms of Service for Github start rolling out.

Edit: where's the sidechain that does Git on top of decentralised storage (e.g. StorJ)?

I have a radical tip for you two: read the thread

Microsoft are a problem to Github because they are a computing & tech business that have a history of making progressively worse tech; either by buying other companies and regressing functionality/performance, or doing the same with in-house products they've owned for years. More news: Bitcoin is a technology too, it helps a little if you know something about how the technology world works, instead of writing arrogant polemics that can be easily dismissed using information from the same page you posted to.

I asked for specifics because no one in the thread provided them and the prognosis was unclear to me. Thanks @marcus_of_augustus for providing some context for us plebeians.


What did I say that resembles "arrogant polemics?" Sorry for not immediately understanding, and for asking questions...

You didn't read what marcus said either (nothing about what Microsoft might do to change Github, which was your apparently pertinent question).


I have a radical tip for you (again): read the thread (and the replies of anyone you attempt to employ as argument)

What are these "arrogant polemics" you speak of.....? What argument was I even employing.....?

I never made an argument, and I certainly never employed one against you. Literally, what are you talking about?

By your own words, no one in the thread provided specifics or said what would actually happen. So I'm at a loss for how repeating "read the thread" multiple times is helpful, but thanks for the advice. I thanked marcus_of_augustus for providing some additional context, though I'll note his mention of "the inevitable changes in Terms of Service for Github rolling out" as well. Between his reply and Wladimir's comment (https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/1003890735199019008) that "[Github] could certainly mess with reviewing" the picture became clearer for me: this doesn't affect the security of the repository itself at all, but it could potentially throw wrenches into the review process.

I never had any strong opinion and was actually seeking clarity, so it's frankly bizarre that you keep accusing me of making polemics and arguments. I saw this comment by sipa (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13387#issuecomment-394210047) and thought it sensible, not really understanding what the big fuss was about, hence my original post:


I still don't understand what the risks are specifically (beyond "Microsoft is bad"), but I'll concede this discussion is going nowhere and there's no point continuing.