Bitcoin Developers

[Alex Zee]

Any progress on this?

Are you asking me?

And this is the final version with database support:

http://qbizy.com/show.php

Results are displayed from the database, which is filled by processing all 27 pages of commits and 32 pages of closed pull requests.

Can somebody do a sanity check on this? To me it looks a bit strange, maybe I've made an error somewhere...

[tcatm]

I have this feature in my development branch and I'm going to push the changes to bitcoin.org within the next days.

Here's a screenshot. Should I have missed any aliases let me know and I'll add them.

https://i.imgur.com/5fTGr.png

[Luke-Jr]

List of authors of over 100 bitcoin patches, sorted by patch count (most patches first):

• Con Kolivas aka "conman"
• Gavin Andresen
• Amir Taaki aka "genjix"
• "Kiba"
• Satoshi Nakamoto
• Jeff Garzik
• David FRANCOIS
• Luke Dashjr
• Pavel Karoukin
• Nils Schneider aka "tcatm"
• "davux"
• John Tobey
• Daniel Folkinshteyn
• Patrick McFarland
• Patrick Strateman aka "phantomcircuit"
• Matt Corallo aka "BlueMatt"
• Pieter Wuille aka "sipa"
• "m0mchil"
• "Artefact2"
• Ehud Ben-Reuven

[tcatm]

Live at http://188.138.99.158/ (hopefully soon on bitcoin.org). It's updated daily via a cronjob.

Source code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org

Feel free to make pull requests to improve it. You can even extend it with jekyll plugins.

[mizerydearia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin lists only a few developers for Bitcoin.  Perhaps it would be useful to include everyone's name there?

[tcatm]

Looks like someone did that and it now includes people who didn't contribute a single line of code to the satoshi client (which the little box is all about).

[Pieter Wuille]

Maybe you can ignore merges when counting number of commits, as these rarely contribute code themselves?

[mizerydearia]

Looks like someone did that and it now includes people who didn't contribute a single line of code to the satoshi client (which the little box is all about).

hmm, perhaps the Bitcoin article should be renamed to Bitcoin client to reflect that it is about the client and not about Bitcoin?  -or- split the article into two, one about the satoshi client and another about Bitcoin in general?  That should prevent confusion regarding names of people since there are many separate developments for bitcoin in which all such developments are developed by developers.

[Luke-Jr]

Looks like someone did that and it now includes people who didn't contribute a single line of code to the satoshi client (which the little box is all about).

hmm, perhaps the Bitcoin article should be renamed to Bitcoin client to reflect that it is about the client and not about Bitcoin?  -or- split the article into two, one about the satoshi client and another about Bitcoin in general?  That should prevent confusion regarding names of people since there are many separate developments for bitcoin in which all such developments are developed by developers.

Actually, the article probably should be about the concept/protocol/network, and not the client. What makes the Satoshi client notable? Pretty sure all the notable sources talk about Bitcoin itself, not some client.

[tcatm]

Maybe you can ignore merges when counting number of commits, as these rarely contribute code themselves?

I'm using github's API: https://github.com/api/v2/json/repos/show/bitcoin/bitcoin/contributors/anon

[Luke-Jr]

Maybe you can ignore merges when counting number of commits, as these rarely contribute code themselves?

I'm using github's API: https://github.com/api/v2/json/repos/show/bitcoin/bitcoin/contributors/anon

Which is why your results are wrong (missing every contribution not part of that client).

Here are my results over 100 without merges counted (Pieter Wuille falls off with only 95):

Code:

    110 Ehud Ben-Reuven
    116 m0mchil
    121 Artefact2
    133 Matt Corallo
    140 Patrick Strateman
    152 Patrick McFarland
    158 satyr
    176 Michael Ficarra
    246 Daniel Folkinshteyn
    304 John Tobey
    323 Nils Schneider
    324 Jeff Garzik
    327 Pavel Karoukin
    354 davux
    365 Luke Dashjr
    371 David FRANCOIS
    396 Gavin Andresen
    441 Kiba
    443 Satoshi Nakamoto
    500 Amir Taaki
    736 Con Kolivas
   1699 Jeremy Ashkenas

Who is Jeremy Ashkenas? O.o

Edit: Looks like someone added CoffeeScript to BitGit. I don't see how it's Bitcoin-related and it was added with a typo'd name and non-valid email, so I'm deleting it...

[Luke-Jr]

Here's a coffeescript-free merge-free commit count:

Code:

    110 Ehud Ben-Reuven
    116 m0mchil
    121 Artefact2
    133 Matt Corallo
    140 Patrick Strateman
    152 Patrick McFarland
    246 Daniel Folkinshteyn
    304 John Tobey
    323 Nils Schneider
    324 Jeff Garzik
    327 Pavel Karoukin
    354 davux
    365 Luke Dashjr
    371 David FRANCOIS
    396 Gavin Andresen
    441 Kiba
    443 Satoshi Nakamoto
    500 Amir Taaki
    736 Con Kolivas

[mizerydearia]

Is the idea of listing other bitcoin developers on the bitcoin.org home page undesirable or unacceptable?

[mizerydearia]

I see Wladimir J. van der Laan - laanwj@gmail.com was added.  Will the bitcoin.org site ever give recognition to all developers that have contributed to the bitcoin.org bitcoin release or only provide recognition to a select few that have been privileged/accepted?

[BitcoinPorn]

Curiosity on this, because I notice these threads regarding the devs.  Are some just not wanting to be listed?   

[mizerydearia]

Comparison of projects:

Projects that credit very few developers/contributors:
bitcoin (see entry below)
xmonad

Projects that credit many or all developers/contributors:
bitcoin
fluxbox
gentoo developers
github
gnu
jquery
libreoffice
memcached
opensim
openwrt
php
seamonkey
xfce

Projects that do not noticeably credit anyone:
abiword
apache
atheme
chromium
dd-wrt
django
emacs
gimp
gitorious
gnome
haskell
kde
keepass / keepassx
lighttpd
linux
mozilla firefox
mysql
nginx
node.js
perl
python
ruby
vim

if I made any mistakes or missed any, feel free to correct, however, I think these examples are useful to better explain my concern for better crediting those that deserve credit if any credit is documented/publicized at all.

I added bitcoin twice after being pointed out that there is a second page that credits contributors.