Exactly how does BTC development go on, if the current group all quits or dies?

[BTC_Today]

The official BTC source code is currently updated by a group of Devs who contribute to the open source Bitcoin project.

Exactly how does BTC development continue if the current group all quits or dies?
(For example) Who takes over the ghost ship if COVID and the next 19 variants get a lot worse?



Edit: Updated based on early responses:

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave....

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

[OddyseyGames]

You may notice that the developers leave and come. It is natural, there will be new ones that will win the trust of the community and their views on Bitcoin will be new, fresh and the commits will be useful and clean.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You said it yourself. It's open source. People can contribute voluntarily.

If a decent percentage of the developers quitted or died, then the project would continue being open source, the nodes would continue share blocks and transactions etc. Thereafter, anyone who's willing to contribute can.

(For example) Who takes over the ghost ship if COVID and the next 19 variants get a lot worse?

And how are we supposed to know that? I'm convinced there'll always be a team, isn't that enough?

[jackg]

Generally: without commits, bitcoin will stay secure for quite a long time but yes won't be actively developed.

A lot of commits to a lot of open source projects can come from randoms, there's just maintainers that merge code and decide what gets in to an official release.

There's probably a few devs with some btc to be inherited or put towards maintaining the code too which might be used to fund someone who takes over from them/works with them normally and can find a replacement.

[tranthidung]

You can check it with Github. Get it on Bitcoincore.org and Bitcoin's Github

Please stop a moment to think of Dogecoin. Does it has good developments for years?

You can extropolate it to Bitcoin. With a strong network, huge communities, big adoption, Bitcoin will be fine even developers stop doing their works. It's fact.

[Bit_Happy]

And if there is uncertainty about who is in charge, then what happens? Do we have a plan in place now?

[aoluain]

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave. If they all decided
to do nothing from today Bitcoin would continue in its present state, there would be
no advancements but I cannot believe that nobody would replace them.

It would be really something if ALL developers left/stopped or were forced
to stop, like a long shot because Bitcoin is open source with hundreds of contributors.

https://bitcoin.org/en/development#code-review

Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits)

Wladimir J. van der Laan(7124)
MarcoFalke(4479)
Pieter Wuille(1972)
fanquake(1613)
gavinandresen(1101)
hebasto(854)
jonasschnelli(772)
jnewbery(748)
practicalswift(714)
achow101(625)
Cory Fields(604)
TheBlueMatt(502)
jonatack(482)
Luke-Jr(454)
ryanofsky(429)
dongcarl(369)
promag(329)
sdaftuar(290)
meshcollider(280)
non-github-bitcoin(271)
Gregory Maxwell(267)
theStack(214)
morcos(209)
jtimon(173)
Sjors(163)
kallewoof(163)
ajtowns(161)
instagibbs(150)
vasild(139)
amitiuttarwar(137)
Empact(134)
jamesob(131)
glozow(127)
paveljanik(109)
ken2812221(105)
Peter Todd(102)
jimpo(88)
pstratem(84)
fjahr(83)
cozz(70)
.
.
.

[BTC_Today]

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave....

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

[Nhazwrath]

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave....

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

its open source.  the codes already released.

[AML Soap]

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave....

Thank you, now we are very close to the exact topic: A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

its open source.  the codes already released.

I think the OP is asking about what happens if the core Dev team is all gone.

[vv181]

A small group of core devs actually release the code, who takes over if they are gone?

Literally, anyone can contribute if the current developer is all gone. To be realistic, they are all won't simultaneously be gone, I believe the code will be maintained by future developers who are trusted by the community or the current dev might vouch who are have an excellent understanding in regard to the codebase.

After all, the word of a small group you used actually isn't so small if you look just above your post. And if you look at the current Bitcoin repository, there are 842 contributors who at least once contribute to the codebase.

[Upgrade00]

And if there is uncertainty about who is in charge, then what happens? Do we have a plan in place now?

There is no "in charge" when it comes to the bitcoin network, rather it is built on consensus rule. There is a technical head of the development team, but it is all open source and any change would need the support of the community (other devs, nodes, miners) in order to get approved. Disagreement at this stage could lead to a soft fork or a hard fork in some cases.

Bitcoin core is not an elected position, but voluntary, if you have some programming skills, a passion for improving the network and resolving issues, you can be a part of it.

[famososMuertos]

You have a good point from the common expectation or better to say the traditional thought of how financial institutions exist (e.g.), your appreciation is very valid because always by the traditional system, we have to see, feel the physical infrastructure and that there is a board of directors that puts and removes people according to their executive needs, but also the normal ones of life, old age, death or simply retirement.
With Bitcoin it happens that the physical infrastructure in similarity and the way in which people are removed and placed does not work the same, but I repeat your concern is very reasonable.

Maybe you should read and understand some of the things mentioned above, but I would recommend that you add reading about the consensus and among other topics, not always a specific topic can give you the answers if you do not have a consistent background in the line of learning about Bitcoin.

[fara_buduk]

a reasonable concern but you already know about the performance of bitcoin in running it while

Technically Bitcoin development stops if all the dev's stop or leave....

I don't think it's that easy to happen considering that bitcoin developers are in various parts of the world and continue to grow

[mynonce]

Back in 2009, people could have asked: 'What will happen, if Satoshi, the creator, leaves the project?'
Satoshi left, what happened?
Bitcoin still exists.
The same would happen again.

[Vaskiy]

Back in 2009, people could have asked: 'What will happen, if Satoshi, the creator, leaves the project?'
Satoshi left, what happened?
Bitcoin still exists.
The same would happen again.

Agreed, and Satoshi left without revealing his identity for some reason. What he left to the world is kept alive by number of contributors working around the world.

With mining we can see similar questions. If a miner leaves the network what will happen, will it affect the market/price of bitcoin. In reality the answer is simple, someone else will take the place.

Same as that we have other people to fill the empty space, there is more contributors waiting for the right time to be part of the core development.

[hatshepsut93]

Exactly how does BTC development continue if the current group all quits or dies?
(For example) Who takes over the ghost ship if COVID and the next 19 variants get a lot worse?

It's really unrealistic that all current devs would stop contributing to the code. Covid would need to have like 99.9% lethality to kill all Bitcoin devs, so we'd have bigger problems than Bitcoin development if that happened.

Over the course of Bitcoin's history many people stopped contributing, like Mike Hearn or Gavin Andersen, and as you can see, it's not a problem. In the highly unlikely event of mass quit, the development would slow down for some time, but eventually it will get back on track.

[franky1]

pretty much everyone relies on "core" as the repository of updates. and it only requires the main repo key holder and half a dozen people with merge authority to vanish without 'passing down' their key authority to new people to cause problems.

take the recruitment of Wladimir J. van der Laan becoming the maintainer in 2014.
currently wlad chairs/manages:
bitcoincore.org
bitcoin core github
development IRC
development mailinglist
and much more.

yes general contributors can suggest code updates but the 'merge' half dozen have the authority to accept/reject these suggestions. and then wlad has the main authority on the final release process of a node version with those merged updates, and he signs the release candidate and announces it to the wider dev group.

if he disappeared, then what can be done with the github repo becomes very limited. especially surrounding the release process of new updates.
if the half dozen with merge authority disappeared then wlad would have to recruit others to replace(IF wlad didnt disappear too).
 
here he explains.
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

..
due to the reliance and "trust" of the "core" repo. worse case that something did happen unexpectedly to the top half dozen people including wlad, the entire bitcoin ecosystem would need to find another repo of code and group of devs to trust. to become the new "core" repo of updates and bug solving. this can cause disruption of how long a new trusted release of an update can happen.

it was said over 7 years ago that people have different repos and anyone can release a node software which the community can use. but in years after, too many have trusted and relied on one repo, one brand of node, and now going back to an open network where no single brand should be trusted would take time and some debate and disruption.

also if we moved back to the scenario of not trusting one repo. that single repo cant then push forward soft/hard forks as easily as seen in 2017+. and we can get back to having the community of nodes truly use consensus to come to an agreeable way forward, rather than the trust that one repo is trusted to move forward for the benefit of the community.

ofcourse these consensus based updates are less straight forward(nov 2016 segwit attempt 1) to update the network than the mandated single repo(june 2017 segwit attempt 2) update model.

but then if an update would actually benefit the wide community, it would then get wide support for all the variable repo's to accept independently, rather than follow without choice. thus the update of the network would happen when acceptance reached a threshold by the masses.

[pooya87]

First thing you need to know is that there is no such thing as "official" bitcoin source code. Bitcoin is an open source protocol that many have attempted at implementing it and there are a handful of implementation of this protocol and one is the most popular known as bitcoin core also referred to as reference implementation.

Secondly, there isn't just one or two devs living in the same house that can die or go away together! There are at least half a dozen serious developers for each implementation with popular ones having dozens of serious contributors. They aren't even from the same country to be affected by the same "hypothetical disaster scenario". In reality one or two devs may go away which wouldn't change anything as there are lots of others to fill their place.

[wilkine]

I think current teams already quit, but there will always be new teams coming. As long as crypto exists, people will pay attention to Bitcoin and contribute to its code.
Things have a way of working out when you least expect it