Outdated factoids? ["Bitcoin Core is beta software"]

[NotATether]

There is a list of factoids on the forum page (not post) which elaborates on advertising rules, in the section about "1 out of 10 slots is reserved to the factoids in this list:" and lists factoids such as the following.

Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!

Specifically, should we still be considering Bitcoin as experimental and beta software? The copyright message inside Bitcoin Core hints that it's experimental software, but given that the codebase is quite mature now and breaking changes generally are not merged into the Github tree, are these designations out-of-date and should they be altered?

[NotATether]

are these designations out-of-date and should they be altered?

I agree, but how should it altered? Warning that other wallet might be buggy/unstable?

References to other wallets aren't the concern of Bitcoin Core developers so I'd leave it to those wallets to mention if they are experimental/beta.

As to how it should be altered, nothing fancy - just delete that sentence that says it's experimental software (it stopped being so since the wave of BTC forks happened).

[LoyceV]

just delete that sentence that says it's experimental software

Isn't that part of the legal disclaimer? I don't mind if it stays "experimental" forever.

About Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core version v23.0.0

Copyright (C) 2009-2022 The Bitcoin Core developers

Please contribute if you find Bitcoin Core useful. Visit https://bitcoincore.org/ for further information about the software.
The source code is available from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.

This is experimental software.
Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying file COPYING or https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

[Pmalek]

If Bitcoin Core developers still consider their software experimental and it still says that on the About Bitcoin Core tab, why should the information on Bitcointalk be different from official claims? I say leave it as it is until those who work on it decide to change the experimental prefix. It would be interesting to ask them via GitHub and see why exactly that is and what needs to happen for Bitcoin Core to no longer be experimental?

[hugeblack]

The reason for this is continuous development, as there is no point in which you can say that Bitcoin as a "project" has become completed or Roadmap end, and Bitcoin extends to have a relationship with money, and therefore we can say that it is a disclaimer for each person to review the code himself instead of trusting that the project is complete.

you can read this ---> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20223

https://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-22-18.59.log.html#l-122

[NotATether]

The reason for this is continuous development, as there is no point in which you can say that Bitcoin as a "project" has become completed or Roadmap end, and Bitcoin extends to have a relationship with money, and therefore we can say that it is a disclaimer for each person to review the code himself instead of trusting that the project is complete.

Again, there are many projects that use the continuous version scheme with fixes release cycle that have long since become mainstream software such as browsers, language compilers, IDEs, etc. It would not make sense to continue referring to any of these as experimental or Beta. Besides, as ETFBitcoin pointed out, the [No] Warranty section already warns users that devs won't be responsible for bugs or vulns inside the software.
It's more of a matter of "Read the license of the software you're using".

[PrimeNumber7]

I would still consider bitcoin core as "beta" software.

Any software should go through unit testing prior to being released, which should catch any breaking changes. This is regardless of "beta" status.

There has been a lot of work put into bitcoin core, including by many talented people, however, it is still far from perfect. Further, the warning to not keep all your money in bitcoin is very much valid, as cryptocurrencies are still very new, and there is a very real risk that the price of bitcoin will one day go to very near zero.

I understand that the factoids were submitted by those who purchased a "donator" membership and being able to do so was one of the "perks" of having a donator membership. I believe theymos may have previously removed factoids with broken links.

[Pmalek]

There was a similar discussion started in September 2021 > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5361261.0.
The OP of that thread was arguing that Bitcoin shouldn't be called an "an experimental digital currency".

achow101, a Bitcoin Core Developer and Contributor said the following:

Bitcoin Core still (intentionally) contains a line that says "this software is experimental". The line saying that Bitcoin Core is beta software was removed in 2014.

Also, regarding the version number change from 0.21.0 to 22.0, achow101 said:

The version number is not an indicator of experimental or beta status.
...
It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate.

[dkbit98]

Specifically, should we still be considering Bitcoin as experimental and beta software? The copyright message inside Bitcoin Core hints that it's experimental software, but given that the codebase is quite mature now and breaking changes generally are not merged into the Github tree, are these designations out-of-date and should they be altered?

Some people would even consider Linux OS to be experimental operating system, especially rolling releases like Manjaro etc.
For Bitcoin, this is probably just a simple protection from receiving lawsuits from people who lose money by using Bitcoin core software, even if that is done by their own mistake.
I could think of scenarios with bitcoin developers getting bunch of lawsuits because mempool is full and transaction got stuck, or if some files got corrupted, and similar.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using experimental beta software, and I will continue ''testing'' bitcoin for life.  

[ibminer]

Well, I know for a fact that the factoids have had some recent updates.

That said, some of the factoid entries are provided to Donators/VIPs.. which might not be as easy to modify, but I'm not sure if this is one of them or not.

Personally, I don't mind it being displayed as beta in a factoid, even to serve as some sort of historical reference. Although, I can't say I'd consider Core as beta, from a software perspective. Experimental..?  Maybe on an economic, social, or political plane?

[LoyceV]

Some people would even consider Linux OS to be experimental operating system, especially rolling releases like Manjaro etc.

Considering the number of bugs in almost any piece of software (including the software that comes preinstalled on hardware), I consider virtually all software as experimental nowadays.

Wikipedia on "Stable releases":

The remaining bugs are considered as acceptable.

So the difference between beta and stable is accepting the remaining bugs as "normal"

[ibminer]

~ I consider virtually all software as experimental nowadays.

Fair point. It may also come down to what we are considering software. There are several instances of simplistic firmware, scripts, shared libraries, or even simple applications like notepad (even though a new version is apparently being released now.. which will likely introduce bugs ).

On an individual basis, I'd probably see some of these as no longer experimental, although certainly the overwhelming amount of applications out there today are far from perfection, and it is continually spit out with seemingly subpar developers and lack of good quality assurance checks.

So the difference between beta and stable is accepting the remaining bugs as "normal"

Sadly, which probably includes bugs nobody is even aware of and/or have yet to be discovered.. but then I guess they are not 'normal' anymore, once discovered.. at least, we'd hope.

[dkbit98]

And as i said previously, MIT License already do that job. I doubt sentence "This is experimental software." could help Bitcoin Core developer if the court ignore MIT License.

Don't you remember that Bitcoin whitepaper had the same MIT license but Faketoshi Craig White still managed to start several lawsuits against many bitcoiners, and I even think he won some of them for Bitcoin.org website.

Considering the number of bugs in almost any piece of software (including the software that comes preinstalled on hardware), I consider virtually all software as experimental nowadays.

Yeah I agree with that, WiNd0ws OS probably has more bugs than any other software, but they consider it stable release and they even charge money for that crap 

[NotATether]

Some people would even consider Linux OS to be experimental operating system, especially rolling releases like Manjaro etc.

Well, to be honest, some parts of that (Linux) are not only experimental but old (I'm thinking about X11 specifically) but others are quite mature and stable and are named as such.

For Bitcoin, this is probably just a simple protection from receiving lawsuits from people who lose money by using Bitcoin core software, even if that is done by their own mistake.
I could think of scenarios with bitcoin developers getting bunch of lawsuits because mempool is full and transaction got stuck, or if some files got corrupted, and similar.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using experimental beta software, and I will continue ''testing'' bitcoin for life.  

I can understand that, but someone would have to be really dumb to sue developers because the mempool is full and their tx is taking too long to confirm!

[PrimeNumber7]

Specifically, should we still be considering Bitcoin as experimental and beta software? The copyright message inside Bitcoin Core hints that it's experimental software, but given that the codebase is quite mature now and breaking changes generally are not merged into the Github tree, are these designations out-of-date and should they be altered?

Some people would even consider Linux OS to be experimental operating system, especially rolling releases like Manjaro etc.
For Bitcoin, this is probably just a simple protection from receiving lawsuits from people who lose money by using Bitcoin core software, even if that is done by their own mistake.
I could think of scenarios with bitcoin developers getting bunch of lawsuits because mempool is full and transaction got stuck, or if some files got corrupted, and similar.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using experimental beta software, and I will continue ''testing'' bitcoin for life. 

I don't think the warning is about protecting the devs. I think it is more likely to be a legitimate warning to potential users to not keep all their money in cryto. A warning on a discussion forum that is not officially associated with the project is unlikely to provide any legal protections to the devs of said project.