Bitcoin Development Team

[ChiBitCTy]

I am curious if there is a list of the current development team for bitcoin.  I am not sure if that is something that they keep private or if there is a list out there somewhere of who the developers are.  I am also curious if there is a lead developer for bitcoin, or if it just a team at this point and there is no lead like Gavin used to be?

[dansus021]

to be honest yes i curious maybe there's lead team but approval of new proposal still in public hand

[pooya87]

For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization. Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol that has many developers contributing to its improvement with lots of different open source projects.
For example SomberNight is a bitcoin developer who is contributing to Electrum (the SPV implementation of Bitcoin protocol). laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
Each project has its own "lead" developer who controls the github repository and holds the keys to let changes be merged into the source code or not. But anyone with or without programming knowledge can make a contribution, whether it is just bug report or opening pull requests with major changes.

[franky1]

For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization.
...
laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).

when it takes years for pooya to see his own contradictions in his own statements.. you got to wonder why it takes soo long

..
yes there are many 'projects' of light/spv/private wallets. but since ~2015-17 there has only been ONE repository centralising and leading the protocol decisions

electrum cant overrule 'reference implementation' decisions. and thats how 'reference implementation' like it

one day he might even read his contradictions and see and learn the difference between a contribution and a request of contribution. especially when you see the same people who get to acknowledge requests. are also the moderators of the other communication area's of development of the 'reference implementation'

note: calling 'reference implementation' by its brand name and given names to lead developers and their other controls. usually gets posts deleted or harrassed by those peoples fanbase.

even though i am a bitcoiner. the 'reference implementation' group dont like to be talked about negatively

[DapanasFruit]

There is no officially recognized developers for Bitcoin but we have volunteers who are working for its development. This scenario is unlike what we usually have in Ethereum and other popular blockchain network...which in fact raise the question on centralization and decentralization. Now, the question is: Is this set-up better than what alts have or do we still prefer something that has clear and visible leadership on it?

[Zilon]

Bitcoin is an open source software and as such any body can contribute to the system. If you are a developer you too can contribute to Bitcoin existence but having a list of bitcoin developers is something you might never get because it's rather better been anonymous to avoid altering it's decentralized nature.

[mk4]

If you're specifically referring to Bitcoin core developers, then you can simply take a look at the contributors list on the Bitcoin Core GitHub repository, and just filter out the date range for what best fits your definition of "current".

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors


EDIT: Had to mention this. If you're making good money inside or outside the cryptocurrency industry, please don't forget to support the developers: https://bitcoindevlist.com/

[franky1]

Bitcoin is an open source software and as such any body can contribute to the system.

have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)


yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles

[mk4]

have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)


yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles

Shouldn't it be somewhat of a good thing? Anyone can make proposals but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to approve them. And we really don't want the Bitcoin Core software to be having software modifications left and right.

[Obito]

They have a Github, also if you are already there, try to donate to them because I think that this is their full time job, core development for bitcoin. The only one that I know that's in this forum that is part of the team is @achow101.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am curious if there is a list of the current development team for bitcoin.  I am not sure if that is something that they keep private or if there is a list out there somewhere of who the developers are.

They don't keep it private, but that isn't much of a concern. There isn't a single owner, no. It is a Github organization and if something that would affect the client is proposed, these are the first people who must come into an agreement. I think that every change is being taken very democratically (not necessarily in the code).

Shouldn't it be somewhat of a good thing? Anyone can make proposals but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to approve them. And we really don't want the Bitcoin Core software to be having software modifications left and right.

Save your breath...

[ranochigo]

Anyone can submit PRs to the Bitcoin Core github repo and anyone can discuss on the issues raised and the changes to the code. There are users with commit access to be able to merge commits into the repository and include it in the next RC, until it gets to the official release eventually. IIRC, there are various maintainers for the various components of Bitcoin Core and only a single lead maintainer for the entire repo.

[junmisakiro]

I am curious if there is a list of the current development team for bitcoin.  I am not sure if that is something that they keep private or if there is a list out there somewhere of who the developers are.  I am also curious if there is a lead developer for bitcoin, or if it just a team at this point and there is no lead like Gavin used to be?

As @mk4 mentioned about development of course everything you need is available on bitcoin core Github and also provides quality code, even any developer can also contribute to the project, of course this is very useful and good for you, especially if you are interested in learning more about bitcoin technical details.

[DarkDays]

For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization. Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol that has many developers contributing to its improvement with lots of different open source projects.
For example SomberNight is a bitcoin developer who is contributing to Electrum (the SPV implementation of Bitcoin protocol). laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).
Each project has its own "lead" developer who controls the github repository and holds the keys to let changes be merged into the source code or not. But anyone with or without programming knowledge can make a contribution, whether it is just bug report or opening pull requests with major changes.

Yes, to that extent the maintenance and security of the Bitcoin blockchain network is solely voluntary, and because of this nature the people who carry out all the work are independent. Yes, there might be social online communities but its users are using aliases.

It is a great project which demonstrates that people are willing to chip in with their knowledge and skills in their spare time. This is what arguably makes Bitcoin decentralized.

[NotATether]

I think you can safely assume that most of the people who attended the taproot activation meeting via IRC channel (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Taproot_activation_proposal_202102) are part of the core team.

[DannyHamilton]

Anyone can submit PRs to the Bitcoin Core github repo and anyone can discuss on the issues raised and the changes to the code. There are users with commit access to be able to merge commits into the repository and include it in the next RC, until it gets to the official release eventually. IIRC, there are various maintainers for the various components of Bitcoin Core and only a single lead maintainer for the entire repo.

Personally, I don't like the phrase "official release".  It gives a sense that this is a centralized system where an authority declares what is "official" and everything else is "unofficial". In reality, anyone can clone the source code. They can then become the "lead developer" of their copy of the source. So long as their code remains 100% compatible with the current reference implementation regarding the consensus rules, they can add any other features they like.  If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.

[Wind_FURY]

For starters Bitcoin is not a company or a single repository or anything that means centralization.
...
laanwj is another developer contributing to the reference implementation of bitcoin (the Full node implementation of Bitcoin protocol).

when it takes years for pooya to see his own contradictions in his own statements.. you got to wonder why it takes soo long

..
yes there are many 'projects' of light/spv/private wallets. but since ~2015-17 there has only been ONE repository centralising and leading the protocol decisions

It’s centralizing, yes. But do you prefer the development of the protocol to be chaotic, franky1? Open source projects also need some structure for more efficient development. In fact, the development of the Linux kernel is also centralized to it’s own repository, and it’s master Linus Torvalds.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.

Essentially, if they convince the vast majority of users to use their code, then it can be announced that Bitcoin is officially changed. It is official that people decided to move differently than the developers proposed; it is official the signal for Taproot from the miners.

Essentially, “official release” is a statement agreed from people and since they all manage with their way how Bitcoin will work, there isn't such thing as “unofficial release”.

[DannyHamilton]

If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.

Essentially, if they convince the vast majority of users to use their code, then it can be announced that Bitcoin is officially changed.

Announced by whom? What prevents that person from announcing it BEFORE "the vast majority of users to use the code"?

It is official that people decided to move differently than the developers proposed; it is official the signal for Taproot from the miners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Welsh]

Essentially, “official release” is a statement agreed from people and since they all manage with their way how Bitcoin will work, there isn't such thing as “unofficial release”.

I don't think so, I think official is something that a lot of people just use incorrectly. What you are describing is what people have consensus agreed is the more appropriate path to take, but I don't think that makes it any more official than other suggestions.

Personally, I think official can only be used when there's a clear entity that controls it. For example, this forum theymos controls, therefore the rules that are posted by theymos can be described as unofficially. The Bitcoin code base isn't controlled by anyone, so nothing can truly be official. Though, there's obvious routes that might be better for the users, it doesn't necessarily mean its official.

have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)


yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles

This is common in open source development. The code proposals are peer reviewed, to make sure they actually contribute to the code. While you could argue that is centralisation, surely there has to be a point where we draw the line to prevent just any code being injected in the main development line. I think people, and in particular users on this forum, and Bitcoin supports treat centralisation as a bad thing, when its not necessarily bad for everything. There's definitely scenarios where centralisation makes sense, then other times like a currency it doesn't.