I'd like you to clarify me and the whole community how is Bitcoin really managed.
It is not.
Who the hell controls the code?
Which code? Electrum? MultiBit? Coinbase? F2Pool? Eligius? Bitcoin-Qt? They each have their own developers and each have their own people in control.
Obviously, when you go into GitHub you can clearly see the 12 people behind the Bitcoin project.
It looks like you are only asking about the Bitcoin-Qt (also called the "Bitcoin Core") code? There is
NOTHING OFFICIAL about that code. That is just one repository that a group of developers have chosen to contribute to, and which some people choose to use. It currently has a lot of influence only because a lot of people like to use it. If people decided they liked a different repository instead, then that current repository would lose all its influence.
I ask who are those people
They are the people that have chosen to voluntarily spend a lot of their own time working on that version of the code.
how they got to have the divine power to control the source code of a project with market capitalization of $10,000,000,000?
They don't control all the source code. They only control Bitcoin Core. Anyone else can create any code they want without any permission required from anyone.
Did Satoshi Nakamato choose them?
Nope. They just started contributing all on their own.
Aren't 12 guys deficient to run such a project?
Well, it would be nice if more people would contribute, but I'm not going to force someone to contribute if they don't want to.
Can't they maliciously exploit the system in some way?
If the users are foolish enough to believe that anything those guys put out is automatically acceptable, then yes, they can exploit that foolishness. If the users are astute enough to review changes and are careful not to run maliciously exploitative code, then no.
- snip -
My code may be good enough for the Bitcoin community but it may harm the developers' interest.
- snip -
Then fork the code and convince the Bitcoin community to use your better code. If you can convince enough of the community that your code is better, then those other developers become powerless. If the community doesn't like your code and prefers the code that the other developers are putting out, then they can keep running the other code. Either way, the community gets what they want.
Well, these 12 people have the ultimate power to approve the new code, which is too much of a power!
No, they don't. They only have power to approve the new code that is accepted into that particular GitHub repository. You are welcome to create your own repository, choose what is accepted to your repository, convince other developers to contribute to your repository, and convince users to use your code.
Being Open Source doesn't give you or the community any control over the codebase...
Of course it does. You can control your own version of the codebase all you want. If you create something that other users want, then they will use your code instead of the other repository.
Nobody knows how is the code of outside contributors is approved.
It is reviewed and discussed, and if the person in control of that repository is convinced to add it, he does.
One piece of code can make much sense to one developer and in the same time no sense to other developer!
Which is why it is reviewed and discussed by multiple developers.
And what is this code patches a security hole?
As long as it doesn't do anything else that isn't wanted, then it will probably be accepted. Or you could just add it to your own version so others that want the patch can have it.
If anyone could just update the code would be complete chaos, of course.
Nope. Anyone can change the code. All you need to do is convince people to use your version.
But how the hell did those 12 people came to be the maintainers of this HUGE project.
They work on the code, and people like what they are doing, so people use the code that they create.
Were they democratically elected?
Effectively, yes. They create code, and the community "votes" by either choosing to use the code that they create, or choosing to use someone else's code.
Could they be criminals?
Yes, they could.
Are they even the guys they say to be?
Probably. Why would it matter? Either they create code that people want, or they don't.
It looks like you are only asking about the Bitcoin-Qt (also called the "Bitcoin Core") code? There is NOTHING OFFICIAL about that code. That is just one repository that a group of developers have chosen to contribute to, and which some people choose to use. It currently has a lot of influence only because a lot of people like to use it. If people decided they liked a different repository instead, then that current repository would lose all its influence.
Does that mean that if I choose to create my own repository, it will work and be compatible with the current software running Bitcoin.
