How is BTC being developed?

[PremiumCodeX]

Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?

I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.

[1714156052]

1714156052

[1714156052]

1714156052

[1714156052]

1714156052

[1714156052]

1714156052

[AgentofCoin]

Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?

I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.

Most simply, when "core developers" or other developers work on new versions of the software,
due to it being a decentralized network, those changes only take effect when a majority of software
users use that specific version. You essentially vote by your preferred software choice.

If users like a proposed change, they use that version, if they do not, they do not use that version.
Over time, it is assumed a specific version will gain a sizable majority and that proposed change(s)
becomes the new protocol or new version. Again, the changes do not take effect until that specific
majority number is met and then after some additional time, becomes fully functional on the global
network.

Changes are only made, when a majority agrees to that change.
This is called Consensus and is how Bitcoin allows for changes in the protocol/code.

[QuestionAuthority]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

[CyberKuro]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

[QuestionAuthority]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.

[Yakamoto]

Since BTC has a decentralized network, the question pops up that how the "core developers" can develop it?
Isn't changing the software means the power of influencing how the network is working?

I am writing about the development of the original BTC blockchain, not the altcoins.

To my knowledge a lot of it comes from the core developers having one of the most successful wallets within the Bitcoin economy, and as they develop it they put out a new version for core and then update it that way.

Most of the changes are soft though, a majority of the hard/big forks end up stuck in dev hell, like segwit or whatever that other proposed method was. It's rare to see core go and just do something huge without community backing.

[Viscount]

Core don't make anyone to trust them If you wish you can participate if you're able to create a code. Suggest something valuable. Peaple see who is professional and thrust their money and we see the growing capitalization.

[meemiinii]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.

i agree with you sir. due to lack of motivation like payment for there hardwork, they try to go other project. whether or not they love what they are doing as long as it compensate them enough.. if only they are being paid right, enough and satisfying, then it will motivate them to do more innovations and developments that would really help the bitcoin community in the near future.

[QuestionAuthority]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.

i agree with you sir. due to lack of motivation like payment for there hardwork, they try to go other project. whether or not they love what they are doing as long as it compensate them enough.. if only they are being paid right, enough and satisfying, then it will motivate them to do more innovations and developments that would really help the bitcoin community in the near future.

It's not like I'm ungrateful for their work. I understand the need to eat. I just don't think the devs working on Bitcoin see beyond their ability to use Bitcoin for wealth and peer recognition. Bitcoin just doesn't seem to attract the same kind of personalities that Linux does.

[Kakmakr]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.

i agree with you sir. due to lack of motivation like payment for there hardwork, they try to go other project. whether or not they love what they are doing as long as it compensate them enough.. if only they are being paid right, enough and satisfying, then it will motivate them to do more innovations and developments that would really help the bitcoin community in the near future.

It's not like I'm ungrateful for their work. I understand the need to eat. I just don't think the devs working on Bitcoin see beyond their ability to use Bitcoin for wealth and peer recognition. Bitcoin just doesn't seem to attract the same kind of personalities that Linux does.

Have I missed something? I thought some of these developers were working for MIT & Blockstream to specifically work on Bitcoin? I thought they worked on Bitcoin full-time? How would investors feel, if they are moving onto other projects and not concentrating on Bitcoin? Interesting, I would like to know, what the motivations were for people to invest in Blockstream, if it was not for development of Bitcoin related projects. ^hmmmmm^

Source :> http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-startup-blockstream-raises-55-million-in-funding-round-1454518655

[ASHLIUSZ]

Bitcoin is developed with high security with high potential outcomes. Its been developed as an technology which further on the support from users around the world has now been used as an investment and as a currency similar to one that we use in our daily life. Right now stores accepting bitcoin is quite low and keep on counting.

[Amph]

there are proposal and some of them may fix some issue for the short term, but as long as there is no consensus there is no development, we will remain with the current core

but update are still being released, recently the 13.2 version has been released, there is still more things to add to make it easy to use for the average joe

[ImHash]

Is there any other projects like any altcoin being developed by core team? I think if the same team and names with the same principles and professionally dedicated commitment start working on a real alternative to bitcoin, lets call it something that shows it could be trusted and as an improved bitcoin without bitcoin's flaws or weaknesses.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.

[Kprawn]

Is there any other projects like any altcoin being developed by core team? I think if the same team and names with the same principles and professionally dedicated commitment start working on a real alternative to bitcoin, lets call it something that shows it could be trusted and as an improved bitcoin without bitcoin's flaws or weaknesses.
Have they done something like that? if so then I can't see in bitcoin.org.

They are focussing on SegWit and the Lightning Network for now, but this can be adapted {or so I am told } to fit other Alt coins, like

LiteCoin. So we might see an improved Alt coins soon, if consensus cannot be reached that it should be included into Bitcoin. This will most

definitely close the gap between Bitcoin and these Alt coins in the future. They should listen to the users, not your own pockets. 

[PremiumCodeX]

Thank you for explaining the development process! I understand now how BTC is being developed and the problems with it. I find the idea that the people who are developing BTC are different personalities than the developers of Linux very interesting. I think, the personalities that a project attracts have major impact on the project's development. In BTC, we cannot separate it from our direct financial interests. But I think the more important problem is the diversity of community. As it is written in the core protocol, users have the power to decide which direction BTC will move further. Core developers take care of its technical requirements. But since the different sections of the community have very different financial interests, reaching consensus seem to be almost impossible. Will crypto's future be the eternal war of coins? I keep it possible after all.

[QuestionAuthority]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

So, what's in your opinion in case to make the developing progress be better and faster instead of poorly and slowly?
I understand that bitcoin development require many agreement from devs teams, miners and users that called consensus just like mentioned above. We can't say it will easy due to we don't have any leader and decentralized system if bitcoin, that what makes it interesting. You may share your thoughts to inform us.

Most of the key devs that were devoting their lives to it have moved on to other projects, Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible, devs are not paid so their motivation is lacking which has led them to work on other projects like lightening, blockstream, etc. It's really a multitude of problems with the system that even other open source projects don't have and I think it's because money is directly involved. People work on Linux distros out of love and care about the project. People work on Bitcoin for cold hard cash and they've proven that time and time again.

i agree with you sir. due to lack of motivation like payment for there hardwork, they try to go other project. whether or not they love what they are doing as long as it compensate them enough.. if only they are being paid right, enough and satisfying, then it will motivate them to do more innovations and developments that would really help the bitcoin community in the near future.

It's not like I'm ungrateful for their work. I understand the need to eat. I just don't think the devs working on Bitcoin see beyond their ability to use Bitcoin for wealth and peer recognition. Bitcoin just doesn't seem to attract the same kind of personalities that Linux does.

Have I missed something? I thought some of these developers were working for MIT & Blockstream to specifically work on Bitcoin? I thought they worked on Bitcoin full-time? How would investors feel, if they are moving onto other projects and not concentrating on Bitcoin? Interesting, I would like to know, what the motivations were for people to invest in Blockstream, if it was not for development of Bitcoin related projects. ^hmmmmm^

Source :> http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-startup-blockstream-raises-55-million-in-funding-round-1454518655

Bitcoin was developed by Satoshi to allow payments to be sent from one party to another without the need for a trusted third party. It wasn't designed to make developers or third parties rich. Side chains, lightening network, smart contracts, Casascius coins, or any of the other third party crap isn't Bitcoin. Many key devs have jumped ship to work on things that Bitcoin doesn't need only to line their own pockets.

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-21-million-funding-will-drive-bitcoin-development/

[Decoded]

The ideas posted here are all what people say are blockstream's ideals. Some people like to think they are misled.

You could argue that Bitcoin's system of decentralisation does not have to extend to the development, just the network. So if blockstream comes out with an update, it's solely the network's choice to move over to them.

With regarding the other hard forks - If Bitcoin core was a hard fork, would you have chosen them over the diverse selection of supposedly better (depends on your view) forks.

[franky1]

Chinese miners are controlling development (like block size), getting consensus has proven to be all but impossible,

here is the issue.

instead of making it a 2 part consensus
nodes first
pools second

blockstream decided to skip the hard consensus and went soft requiring just pools to form consensus.

the problem.. smart and risk averting pools wont flag desire for something if the nodes they send this new data to are not full validating nodes to double check the new data.

so while the node count is low. pools are not in a rush to change.. as there are risks of letting unupdated nodes just pass data on blindly.

it should have always been a real consensus vote. and core(blockstream) just thought they could slip it under the rug before christmas by bypassing real consensus by making it soft.. but pools wont risk it

dont blame pools when it was blockstream paid devs that decided to make the pools the decision makers. rather than a full community vote

[Senor.Bla]

I agree with QuestionAuthority that compensation of the Devs is a problem. I also imagine that it is hard to put all your time in a project and at the end it goes i a totally different direction then you wanted it to go. Developing your own Bitcoin is not really a solution to this. Then you decide to go for the money. 

[QuestionAuthority]

The ideas posted here are all what people say are blockstream's ideals. Some people like to think they are misled.

You could argue that Bitcoin's system of decentralisation does not have to extend to the development, just the network. So if blockstream comes out with an update, it's solely the network's choice to move over to them.

With regarding the other hard forks - If Bitcoin core was a hard fork, would you have chosen them over the diverse selection of supposedly better (depends on your view) forks.

When blockstream becomes a non-profit and gives back the almost $100 million dollars of VC money I'll take back what I said about them.  Other than performing the above, their ideals are pretty self evident.

[Sundark]

I agree with QuestionAuthority that compensation of the Devs is a problem. I also imagine that it is hard to put all your time in a project and at the end it goes i a totally different direction then you wanted it to go. Developing your own Bitcoin is not really a solution to this. Then you decide to go for the money. 

At some point we have Bitcoin Foundation, maybe revival of this institution would bring bitcoin a positive changes?
If developers wan't to be paid for their job then maybe we should donate bitcoin for them?
I am sure that many bitcoin users would sent them satoshi or two as token of gratitude.

[Decoded]

The ideas posted here are all what people say are blockstream's ideals. Some people like to think they are misled.

You could argue that Bitcoin's system of decentralisation does not have to extend to the development, just the network. So if blockstream comes out with an update, it's solely the network's choice to move over to them.

With regarding the other hard forks - If Bitcoin core was a hard fork, would you have chosen them over the diverse selection of supposedly better (depends on your view) forks.

When blockstream becomes a non-profit and gives back the almost $100 million dollars of VC money I'll take back what I said about them.  Other than performing the above, their ideals are pretty self evident.

I'm pretty sure decentralised projects like OpenBazaar and BitSquare were funded projects too, so why does Core have to be?

I don't necessarily support core, or any other fork/Dev team for that matter. I just like to see the different sides and their opinions of each other. It's nice to observe the ways people try to twist their words.

[franky1]

When blockstream becomes a non-profit and gives back the almost $100 million dollars of VC money I'll take back what I said about them.  Other than performing the above, their ideals are pretty self evident.

even as a non profit, they can be corrupt.

non profit means at the end of the financial year they cant have made any profit.
this is simply.. 'its month 11, lets go on a spending spree to get rid of the funds in the account'

oxfam have retail shops. but are a non profit because they make sure its always spend by year end.
oxfam CEO get a big fat salary that could have been used to make 1000 water wells. but he buys a house, a boat and a shiny car instead.
oxfam only put 10% of fund towards "worthy projects" once you take away all the money syphoning tricks.

same for red cross. ceo on over $1m a year. giving a low % of income to actual front end services.

thus being a non profit is not as 'ethical/moral' as any other corporation. it just simply means dont make a profit to not have to pay tax on.

even if set as a non profit.. blockstream can still have 'sponsor' contracts to halt bitcoin expansion and instead develop commercial services. as long as they dont make profit and spend every penny by year end

take linux foundation.. hyperldger foundation.. they are at foundation status which meant to be reserved for charitable causes.. but its just used as a tax free scheme.. and yea hyperledger is the bankers blockchain that blockstream is helping to make

[kidoseagle0312]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

How come that Bitcoin is poorly and slowly? I don't think is like that, instead, it is more becoming faster and better actually. And for me bitcoin was developed through developer, that's why some of them when they found out how the community accept it became a scammer.

[morantis]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

How come that Bitcoin is poorly and slowly? I don't think is like that, instead, it is more becoming faster and better actually. And for me bitcoin was developed through developer, that's why some of them when they found out how the community accept it became a scammer.

it is the road ahead of a consensus controlled project.  if i this moment put out a brand new, fully improved fork of bitcoin, people and exchanges have to abandon their current wallets, with the possible risk of losing the balance and adopt mine.  it is not just about the improvements, people have to be so impressed that they accept the new code and believe that enough others will accept it for it to make it. 

the big changes are too scary for acceptance.  little changes that sound like the normal dev list of "improved the font appearance of an address balance in cli" are so boring that people accept those fork changes, just very spaced out

[electronicash]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

How come that Bitcoin is poorly and slowly? I don't think is like that, instead, it is more becoming faster and better actually. And for me bitcoin was developed through developer, that's why some of them when they found out how the community accept it became a scammer.

it is the road ahead of a consensus controlled project.  if i this moment put out a brand new, fully improved fork of bitcoin, people and exchanges have to abandon their current wallets, with the possible risk of losing the balance and adopt mine.  it is not just about the improvements, people have to be so impressed that they accept the new code and believe that enough others will accept it for it to make it. 

the big changes are too scary for acceptance.  little changes that sound like the normal dev list of "improved the font appearance of an address balance in cli" are so boring that people accept those fork changes, just very spaced out

it has to be that way else there will be a lot of users losing their BTCs. if its going to help i think we could reach the consensus. its the developers that needs to rethink whether they really want to take part of the development. if there will be no improvements in the future, i guess then its true what they say that bitcoin will be replaced by an altcoin.

[morantis]

How is BTC being developed?

Poorly and slowly.

How come that Bitcoin is poorly and slowly? I don't think is like that, instead, it is more becoming faster and better actually. And for me bitcoin was developed through developer, that's why some of them when they found out how the community accept it became a scammer.

it is the road ahead of a consensus controlled project.  if i this moment put out a brand new, fully improved fork of bitcoin, people and exchanges have to abandon their current wallets, with the possible risk of losing the balance and adopt mine.  it is not just about the improvements, people have to be so impressed that they accept the new code and believe that enough others will accept it for it to make it.  

the big changes are too scary for acceptance.  little changes that sound like the normal dev list of "improved the font appearance of an address balance in cli" are so boring that people accept those fork changes, just very spaced out

i really think that bitcoin should stay nearly the same and only address issues that come up.  New altcoins, side chains, colored coins, tokens.........these are the places where new technology should be tested and showcased.  

it has to be that way else there will be a lot of users losing their BTCs. if its going to help i think we could reach the consensus. its the developers that needs to rethink whether they really want to take part of the development. if there will be no improvements in the future, i guess then its true what they say that bitcoin will be replaced by an altcoin.

plus, rather than look for new highly obvious features, we need to get fully conversant with what the current fork can do.  Smart contracts, delayed and timed TX's, criteria based TX's(send X BTC to Y addrees if .......), business server side computers can be taught to parse extra data sent in the blank TX space(you can order your pizza, pay for it and even give the pizza places computer your delivery address). Hell, if bitcoin falls short on a feature you need, create a side token, fund it with BTC and code that token to meet your needs, when done send the tokens back to main chain.

Explore everything bitcoin can do and learn, learn, learn...if you feel pretty smart about bitcoin and have not done it yet, push that wallet gui to the side and open terminal.  try to do your daily bitcoin tasks via cli and it takes on a whole new dimension

[canhchuacaro1]

Bitcoin development depends on many factors
If users like a proposed change, they use that version, if they do not, they do not use that version.
Over time, it is assumed a specific version will gain a sizable majority and that proposed change(s)
becomes the new protocol or new version. Again, the changes do not take effect until that specific
majority number is met and then after some additional time, becomes fully functional on the global
network

[morantis]

Bitcoin development depends on many factors
If users like a proposed change, they use that version, if they do not, they do not use that version.
Over time, it is assumed a specific version will gain a sizable majority and that proposed change(s)
becomes the new protocol or new version. Again, the changes do not take effect until that specific
majority number is met and then after some additional time, becomes fully functional on the global
network

but, is it possible, really more accurately was it possible, that a small group of people, focusing enough hashing power, to force a false consensus by supporting whichever fork and applying a vast amount of mining/hashing the their preferred fork.  obviously this could not happen now with a very high difficulty, but with an earlier scenario, when things like cpu mining paid, or with a newer alt coin, can you substitute computing power for popular opinion

[xIIImaL]

Bitcoin development depends on many factors
If users like a proposed change, they use that version, if they do not, they do not use that version.
Over time, it is assumed a specific version will gain a sizable majority and that proposed change(s)
becomes the new protocol or new version. Again, the changes do not take effect until that specific
majority number is met and then after some additional time, becomes fully functional on the global
network

Already bitcoin is be in the better version what world following. We see that bitcoin is not exposed to all the people around the world now. And then bitcoin digital money and not known to people. Once it completed we could see the next versions of bitcoins.

[scozky]

The same way the internet is being developed

[DannyHamilton]

but, is it possible, really more accurately was it possible, that a small group of people, focusing enough hashing power, to force a false consensus by supporting whichever fork and applying a vast amount of mining/hashing the their preferred fork.  obviously this could not happen now with a very high difficulty, but with an earlier scenario, when things like cpu mining paid, or with a newer alt coin, can you substitute computing power for popular opinion

In the case of a hard fork, that wouldn't work.  A hard fork requires an overwhelming majority of all users to run supporting software. Notice that I said "users".  Not miners, not hashpower, users. That includes wallet creators, full nodes, merchants, and consumers. This is because full nodes, and wallets will simply ignore any and all blocks that don't match their consensus rules, regardless of the amount of hashpower used to solve the block.

In the case of a soft fork, they could temporarily enforce their new consensus until they ran out of money and stopped hashing (at which point the old rules would return).  If the majority of the users didn't like the new rules being enforced, they could potentially create a hard fork that blocks those new rules.

[PremiumCodeX]

here is the issue.

instead of making it a 2 part consensus
nodes first
pools second

blockstream decided to skip the hard consensus and went soft requiring just pools to form consensus.

the problem.. smart and risk averting pools wont flag desire for something if the nodes they send this new data to are not full validating nodes to double check the new data.

so while the node count is low. pools are not in a rush to change.. as there are risks of letting unupdated nodes just pass data on blindly.

it should have always been a real consensus vote. and core(blockstream) just thought they could slip it under the rug before christmas by bypassing real consensus by making it soft.. but pools wont risk it

dont blame pools when it was blockstream paid devs that decided to make the pools the decision makers. rather than a full community vote

In this case, I do not see how Blockstream would mean any solution. I would say leaving the decision to the community and then expecting the community will organize itself and choose and move forward in one direction is not a possibility, but again let us remember how alot of people did not believe in Linux developers because of the same reason and still it magically worked out very well. Could the difference in niche mean this much? Could the words of people's financial interests ruin the co-operation that we saw in the Linux world? An interesting sociological experience.

[staceyoh]

As what I can see bitcoin
is being developed very fast.
It continue to improve from
time to time.

[morantis]

but, is it possible, really more accurately was it possible, that a small group of people, focusing enough hashing power, to force a false consensus by supporting whichever fork and applying a vast amount of mining/hashing the their preferred fork.  obviously this could not happen now with a very high difficulty, but with an earlier scenario, when things like cpu mining paid, or with a newer alt coin, can you substitute computing power for popular opinion

In the case of a hard fork, that wouldn't work.  A hard fork requires an overwhelming majority of all users to run supporting software. Notice that I said "users".  Not miners, not hashpower, users. That includes wallet creators, full nodes, merchants, and consumers. This is because full nodes, and wallets will simply ignore any and all blocks that don't match their consensus rules, regardless of the amount of hashpower used to solve the block.

In the case of a soft fork, they could temporarily enforce their new consensus until they ran out of money and stopped hashing (at which point the old rules would return).  If the majority of the users didn't like the new rules being enforced, they could potentially create a hard fork that blocks those new rules.

i had thought that was the case, but it seemed that at some point in the past couple years i had heard a reference to changes in the consensus rule set that put the power of choice more in the nodes and exchanges.  something you just said put my wrong hash power creating consensus into perspective.  the mining and hashing power is nothing more than something/someone submitting wrong hash keys, eventually the right key is found on a given block and it is solved. the code itself doesn't care how many wrong tries it took, only that it was solved and how long it took.