GitHub is shitty, why not a decentralized solution?

[aliashraf]

I've just received this e-mail from Github:

GitHub <noreply@github.com>

to me
Due to U.S. trade controls law restrictions, your GitHub account has been restricted.
For individual accounts, you may have limited access to free GitHub public repository
services for personal communications only. Please read about GitHub and Trade Controls at
https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-trade-controls for more information

So, people of Iran(like me), Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Crimea (200 millions?) are subject to US Trade Controls as a whole and they can't use GitHub accordingly 

Any comments?

[pereira4]

GitHub has been insanity since it was acquired by Microsoft. The most widespread alternative that I know of is GitLab which has an inbuilt migration feature. Core should have moved a long time ago, however it's a tricky thing.. you just abandon the GitHub? how do you proceed exactly? how do you get people on board?

As all things centralized, when they become too big censorship problems begin, but it's also difficult to shift the created network effect on the site.

[pooya87]

{removed to prevent deviation from main discussion}

in any case it is not a ban, it is a restriction to certain free features such as private repositories. you still can access GitHub, create (public) repositories, contribute,...

alternative that I know of is GitLab

GitLab is also the same.

in any case the version-control "Git" has nothing to do with centralization, it is the "hosting" websites GitHub,... that are centralized. i don't think we can do anything about that.

[achow101]

I don't think a decentralized solution exists, or even is possible. You need to have somewhere for people to submit issues, patches, and comments, how would you decentralize that.

As for alternatives to github, there aren't many. Off the top of my head, I can think of Bitbucket, Sourceforge, and Gitlab. Bitbucket is out of the question because it's Australian and Australia has laws that allow their government to compel employees to add backdoors to software. Sourceforge's UI is awful and they don't use git. There's a reason the project moved off of Sourceforge to Github. And Gitlab is a US based company so you'd run into the same problem there.

Then there are self hosted solutions. The problem with this is that there is no formal organization that backs Bitcoin Core. In order for a self hosted solution to work, someone would have to pay for servers and set it up themselves. They would basically have to run it using their own money and deal with things like DDoS attacks, server management, etc. That's a huge undertaking in both effort and cost. Then there's also the bus factor: what happens if that person gets hit by a bus? So in general, self hosted solutions aren't really a solution for us.

There's also the problem with migrating everything. There's tons of issues and pull requests, migrating everything would be a major pain.

And so we are left with the status quo: keep using github. Of course there has been discussion about migrating away from Github, and this will probably kick off another round of that. But for the foreseeable future, we're still going to be on Github.

FWIW, moving off Github has been something that has been discussed a lot. More recently, besides the thing that was mentioned in the OP, there have been some other technical issues. Things like issues and PRs becoming unviewable and the site being down entirely. So there are other gripes about Github, but nothing absolutely show stopping that requires a switch. The main issue is really of where do we go?

[UnruffledST]

the funniest part of it is the following and i still can't figure out how you could use an open source code sharing website to produce a nuclear,... weapon

GitHub.com may not be used for purposes prohibited under applicable export control laws, including purposes related to the development, production, or use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or long range missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles.

in any case it is not a ban, it is a restriction to certain free features such as private repositories. you still can access GitHub, create (public) repositories, contribute,...

alternative that I know of is GitLab

GitLab is also the same.

in any case the version-control "Git" has nothing to do with centralization, it is the "hosting" websites GitHub,... that are centralized. i don't think we can do anything about that.

Because of the flight trajectory which is coded into a nuclear weapon and stuff, I mean there is some code that goes into a nuclear weapon for it to know where to strike or are you just going to use a bazooka type of thing where it strikes wherever it hits? I mean such information even though general for those with coding knowledge could be of danger in hands of those making home made bombs I mean now they would be able to just put an open sourced flight trajectory into their bomb and off it goes. {I personally removed other content to prevent terrorist organization from using an idea in which is not known to the general public for terror}

Ah just wanted to add that such a thing would be far more dangerous than just drone bombs as drones are usually flown by a human so it is not so anonymous, easier for someone to trace back, etc as they have to be within range blah blah blah all this other stuff.

[odolvlobo]

I've just received this e-mail from Github:

GitHub <noreply@github.com>

to me
Due to U.S. trade controls law restrictions, your GitHub account has been restricted.
For individual accounts, you may have limited access to free GitHub public repository
services for personal communications only. Please read about GitHub and Trade Controls at
https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-trade-controls for more information

So, people of Iran(like me), Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Crimea (200 millions?) are subject to US Trade Controls as a whole and they can't use GitHub accordingly  

Any comments?

Git is decentralized as much as that while you may not be able to directly access a repo on Github, you can still access someone's clone of it.

[AGD]

I've just received this e-mail from Github:

GitHub <noreply@github.com>

to me
Due to U.S. trade controls law restrictions, your GitHub account has been restricted.
For individual accounts, you may have limited access to free GitHub public repository
services for personal communications only. Please read about GitHub and Trade Controls at
https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-trade-controls for more information

So, people of Iran(like me), Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Crimea (200 millions?) are subject to US Trade Controls as a whole and they can't use GitHub accordingly  

Any comments?

GitHub will fade in this ongoing decentralisation process, just like many others.

Edit: IPFS would be a good starting point.

[keychainX]

I've just received this e-mail from Github:

GitHub <noreply@github.com>

to me
Due to U.S. trade controls law restrictions, your GitHub account has been restricted.
For individual accounts, you may have limited access to free GitHub public repository
services for personal communications only. Please read about GitHub and Trade Controls at
https://help.github.com/articles/github-and-trade-controls for more information

So, people of Iran(like me), Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Crimea (200 millions?) are subject to US Trade Controls as a whole and they can't use GitHub accordingly 

Any comments?

Use VPN services..

/KX

[pooya87]

~
Use VPN services..

/KX

that will probably be the thing everyone eventually ends up doing but it is too late for these accounts because they are already flagged and restrictions are applied on them. changing IP address won't help those with established accounts that they had for years with thousands of contributions.
additionally there is this:

Persons in or ordinarily resident in these countries and territories are prohibited from using IP proxies, VPNs, or other methods to disguise their location when accessing GitHub.com services

[dothebeats]

GitHub has been insanity since it was acquired by Microsoft. The most widespread alternative that I know of is GitLab which has an inbuilt migration feature. Core should have moved a long time ago, however it's a tricky thing.. you just abandon the GitHub? how do you proceed exactly? how do you get people on board?

GitLab is almost the same as GitHub, so I don't see what substantial change are we going to have from that. I know there had been a lot of discussions in reddit, here in this forum and some bitcoin IRC channels regarding the migration but the end result is always the same: where do we go from here? Now I know Microsoft hasn't been that friendly to people, especially projects and accounts coming in from affected countries of the trade bans, but then again I don't see anything that they have been doing recently to cause a concern to move the whole project elsewhere--or at least I'm not fully informed of what's happening deep within the surface.

It's a compromise developers have to deal with in their pursuit to maintain bitcoin's code intact and up-to-date. Not everybody likes it but it has to be there somehow as it's the only trusted repo we have right now.

I don't think a decentralized solution exists, or even is possible. You need to have somewhere for people to submit issues, patches, and comments, how would you decentralize that.

--

Then there are self hosted solutions. The problem with this is that there is no formal organization that backs Bitcoin Core. In order for a self hosted solution to work, someone would have to pay for servers and set it up themselves. They would basically have to run it using their own money and deal with things like DDoS attacks, server management, etc. That's a huge undertaking in both effort and cost. Then there's also the bus factor: what happens if that person gets hit by a bus? So in general, self hosted solutions aren't really a solution for us.

With your analogy, I remember what happened to QuadrigaCX's funds. Change this scenario into someone managing a self-hosted repo whcih everybody used, until such time that this dude dies unexpectedly without anyone knowing until the whole system shuts down/certs expired etc etc. Self-hosting is a no-go, but if there's such an organization with no political interest whatsoever and only wants bitcoin to move forward and are willing to pay for such (I highly doubt this), go ahead and migrate, although of course, the community still needs to decide on where to go from there. A simple problem yet leads to branches of even more problems, as if we are onto a stalemate and can't move no further, unless of course MS goes full retard and do something that everyone will not like.

[AGD]

Edit: IPFS would be a good starting point.

Using IPFS is good idea, but i don't see how decentralization is possible. Usually we still need trusted people for some specific tasks, such as approve pull request, manage release, create new branch, etc.

The way i understand IPFS, i think we only can achieve distributed Git repository

IPFS is only a solution for a decentralized file hosting. The rest is just the usual coding stuff. If people create accounts, they can apply permissions to anyone they want. A little bit like OpenBazaar > 2.0, only that these accounts could be shared with other participants based on the permissions, that the account owner provides. Shouldn't be a big issue or did I miss something here?

Edit: Account holder can also be a group that shares a multi sig key.

[aliashraf]

Edit: IPFS would be a good starting point.

Using IPFS is good idea, but i don't see how decentralization is possible. Usually we still need trusted people for some specific tasks, such as approve pull request, manage release, create new branch, etc.

The way i understand IPFS, i think we only can achieve distributed Git repository

IPFS is only a solution for a decentralized file hosting. The rest is just the usual coding stuff. If people create accounts, they can apply permissions to anyone they want. A little bit like OpenBazaar > 2.0, only that these accounts could be shared with other participants based on the permissions, that the account owner provides. Shouldn't be a big issue or did I miss something here?

Edit: Account holder can also be a group that shares a multi sig key.

Thank you,

I'm now thinking of an open source (both client/server and web) application/UI layer for a moderately improved version of git backed by again a modified version of IPFS. Users install git2 locally but git uses IPFS2 as both filing system and for some authorization tasks. UI uses IPFS2 for authorization tasks as well.

I mean, a distributed, decentralized file hosting is a bad ass. any thing like permissions, accounting, security stuff, anything could be representable as a file and what our UI needs is just downloading the required file(s) which he has basically the key for.

[AGD]

Edit: IPFS would be a good starting point.

Using IPFS is good idea, but i don't see how decentralization is possible. Usually we still need trusted people for some specific tasks, such as approve pull request, manage release, create new branch, etc.

The way i understand IPFS, i think we only can achieve distributed Git repository

IPFS is only a solution for a decentralized file hosting. The rest is just the usual coding stuff. If people create accounts, they can apply permissions to anyone they want. A little bit like OpenBazaar > 2.0, only that these accounts could be shared with other participants based on the permissions, that the account owner provides. Shouldn't be a big issue or did I miss something here?

Edit: Account holder can also be a group that shares a multi sig key.

Thank you,

I'm now thinking of an open source (both client/server and web) application/UI layer for a moderately improved version of git backed by again a modified version of IPFS. Users install git2 locally but git uses IPFS2 as both filing system and for some authorization tasks. UI uses IPFS2 for authorization tasks as well.

I mean, a distributed, decentralized file hosting is a bad ass. any thing like permissions, accounting, security stuff, anything could be representable as a file and what our UI needs is just downloading the required file(s) which he has basically the key for.

You're welcome and thanks for the Merit.
Also, if network participants have an incentive to provide disk space, the network would probably grow rapidly around it, or maybe just use already existing solutions like Maidsafecoin.

[crwth]

Do you think that making GitHub decentralized would solve your problem?

You cannot make sure that it is going to make it work because we all know Bitcoin is decentralized and what happened to some countries? They banned or limit the use of it, because they are worried about the “Unregulated Trading” or anything that says bad stuff with Bitcoin but we’re not talking about cryptocurrencies. I think GitHub is trying to comply on where you live, which makes it more legitimate and trustworthy. We’re not talking about anything that regards with what is happening with GitHub, codes and issues, it’s just the fact that the OP has limited access to some features.

Upon reading some replies here, I think the thought of having been acquired by Microsoft, would it be used for more profiting schemes? Maybe advertising in the site itself, knowing that GitHub has gained popularity and is being used by a lot of people, they could easily target people who look at certain codes, etc. Probably another topic created for this.

One good thing that I could think off is that decentralizing the power or the authority in which GitHub is distributed, more power could be disseminated and planning, decision making, etc. would benefit the users and they would have a say in it, in a way. I doubt it’s going to happen anyway.

[UnruffledST]

Do you think that making GitHub decentralized would solve your problem?

You cannot make sure that it is going to make it work because we all know Bitcoin is decentralized and what happened to some countries? They banned or limit the use of it, because they are worried about the “Unregulated Trading” or anything that says bad stuff with Bitcoin but we’re not talking about cryptocurrencies. I think GitHub is trying to comply on where you live, which makes it more legitimate and trustworthy. We’re not talking about anything that regards with what is happening with GitHub, codes and issues, it’s just the fact that the OP has limited access to some features.

Upon reading some replies here, I think the thought of having been acquired by Microsoft, would it be used for more profiting schemes? Maybe advertising in the site itself, knowing that GitHub has gained popularity and is being used by a lot of people, they could easily target people who look at certain codes, etc. Probably another topic created for this.

One good thing that I could think off is that decentralizing the power or the authority in which GitHub is distributed, more power could be disseminated and planning, decision making, etc. would benefit the users and they would have a say in it, in a way. I doubt it’s going to happen anyway.

A decentralized Github would surely benefit its users as the content can't be removed from the inside, a country banning such a thing is easily bypassable.

[ABCbits]

IPFS is only a solution for a decentralized file hosting. The rest is just the usual coding stuff. If people create accounts, they can apply permissions to anyone they want. A little bit like OpenBazaar > 2.0, only that these accounts could be shared with other participants based on the permissions, that the account owner provides. Shouldn't be a big issue or did I miss something here?

Edit: Account holder can also be a group that shares a multi sig key.

Good idea, i didn't think combining IPFS with another system such as OpenBazaar account. All developers & contributor needs to understand the value of their keys though.

I think GitHub is trying to comply on where you live, which makes it more legitimate and trustworthy.

Perhaps, but most people who affected are innocent (not involved or directly support whatever which cause U.S. make this law)

[crwth]

~snip

A decentralized Github would surely benefit its users as the content can't be removed from the inside, a country banning such a thing is easily bypassable.

It could easily be bypassable but you are risking yourself too with it. I don't think they would go looking for something as bypassing the laws or anything but you are still risking it.

I think GitHub is trying to comply on where you live, which makes it more legitimate and trustworthy.

Perhaps, but most people who affected are innocent (not involved or directly support whatever which cause U.S. make this law)

Well, it's not about being innocent, it's being a citizen to where you live and accepting the terms and conditions in the site. If you are going to use it, you need to comply with it. It's their decision to do that and you cannot do anything about it. It's either you choose another site or just go with it. I don't think GitHub is going anywhere soon.

[UnruffledST]

A decentralized Github would surely benefit its users as the content can't be removed from the inside, a country banning such a thing is easily bypassable.

It could easily be bypassable but you are risking yourself too with it. I don't think they would go looking for something as bypassing the laws or anything but you are still risking it.

Risking it to what level? a decentralized github serves its purpose, lets talk about the darkweb sure you do not want to access it via your IP and it may host criminal activies but accesing the darkweb is not criminal, a decentralized github would surely serve its purpose. If you have code that you do not want deleted boom its there never to be deleted. Now sure for those without knowledge of not going anonymous it is risky if they do not want to be seen going to a decentralized github if it is banned in their country... in the U.S it won't be they first have to ban viewing any type of information for educational purpose. Github is purely educational. So lets say that in a country in which they do abuse their power and ban such access from a decentralized Github in those countries it is much much easier to go anonymous buy a off the shelf laptop eh $60 buy a burner router or w.e and get internet that is not on your name. Where is the risk in going anonymous? I know if I use TOR and I am searching something that would not incriminate me yeah I would not care if I use my regular PC still for someone really wanting to go anonymous yeah it is not hard I haven't done so because I do not have the need but at least I know if a time comes where I need to I could easily go anonymous without the feds knowing who I am.

I am all for knowledge and if a country is trying to stop you from learning then yes you do have your alternatives.

[PrimeNumber7]

I read the article inside the email quote posted in the OP, and it looks like the OP had some kind of paid subscription to GitHub, and that GitHub is unable to accept money originating from Iran (nor from anyone inside Iran) due to US sanctions. My reading of the article posted in the OP is that those in Iran can still access GitHub and have a "free" membership.

[crwth]

Risking it to what level? a decentralized github serves its purpose, lets talk about the darkweb sure you do not want to access it via your IP and it may host criminal activies but accesing the darkweb is not criminal, a decentralized github would surely serve its purpose.

I'm not saying that making it decentralized won't serve its purpose, I said it might not complete solve the problem of the OP, because he cannot access some of GitHub's feature because of his location.

If you have code that you do not want deleted boom its there never to be deleted. Now sure for those without knowledge of not going anonymous it is risky if they do not want to be seen going to a decentralized github if it is banned in their country... in the U.S it won't be they first have to ban viewing any type of information for educational purpose. Github is purely educational.

I understand that you cannot change your contributions in a decentralized system, that's great in some ways but could offerr also compromises with different things, like if the developer himself doesn't want the code anymore or something, he can never delete it. Or it can be seen and it can be archived or something. GitHub is just not for developers too, it's for people who want to see codes and educating themselves, it's already serving its purpose for that.

I am all for knowledge and if a country is trying to stop you from learning then yes you do have your alternatives.

That's true, I am a man who is a believer in educating oneself, whether it's for improvement for your own, science-related courses, engineering courses, etc. I do want to have a free sharing of knowledge, but not everyone is going to agree on this, for sure. I forgot the name of the site that you could get scientific articles for free, even the published ones, but you just have to put a link and you could download it right away. They are unlocking free knowledge. (Pretty off-topic)