What would happen to bitcoin if all bitcoin-related stuff on GitHub got banned?

[witcher_sense]

Recently, US Treasury Department has put sanctions[1] on Ethereum mixer Tornado Cash, taken down their website[2], added all associated with the mixer addresses to the OFAC SDN list, and also, which is more important for this topic, compelled Microsoft to suspend Tornado Cash's Github account[3], all repositories and accounts of code maintainers[4]. It is important to emphasize that Tornado cash is not a company but a smart contract that no particular person controls; it is essentially as censorship-resistant and decentralized as the underlying blockchain upon which it is built. In other words, it cannot be "banned" easily.

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin? What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos? What if they ban all contributors, maintainers, and lead developers? Is there a place where the bitcoin codebase can migrate to? Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence? Is it possible to build a decentralized and distributed code hosting platform that no one can censor or shut off?


[1] https://www.coincenter.org/u-s-treasury-sanction-of-privacy-tools-places-sweeping-restrictions-on-all-americans/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20220808144431/https://tornado.cash/
[3] https://github.com/tornadocash
[4] https://nitter.net/semenov_roman_/status/1556717890308653059

[1714907282]

1714907282

[1714907282]

1714907282

[The Sceptical Chymist]

My first impression of your post, OP, is that you're jumping way ahead with that last part of it.

I'm not familiar with tornado cash whatsoever, and I'm pretty ignorant about smart contracts too, but I did take a look at the article and I think what needs to happen is for this action to be challenged via the legal system, lest it set a precedent that might put into motion all of those github removals and negative actions against bitcoin that you suggested could happen.

Does the large and wonderful land of bitcoin happen to have a group of legal scholars who would take on a case like this?  I've always thought bitcoin needed powerful lobbyists to fight for fair regulation and such.  I know there are people like the Winklevoss twins and some OG whales that have some pull, but this seems like there's a need for pro-crypto lawyers.

Anyway, thanks for posting this info.  I'm kind of curious as to what, if anything, is going to come of this action.

[pooya87]

Recently, US Treasury Department has put sanctions[1] on Ethereum mixer Tornado Cash, taken down their website[2], added all associated with the mixer addresses to the OFAC SDN list, and also, which is more important for this topic, compelled Microsoft to suspend Tornado Cash's Github account[3], all repositories and accounts of code maintainers[4].

And yet CoinJoin projects on GitHub like Wasabi are never shut down. Hmmm. LOL.

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin?

Yes.

What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos?

The source code would start being shared on another website. Some issues or PRs may be lost in some projects that don't have a backup (can you even backup PRs or issues from GitHub?).

What if they ban all contributors, maintainers, and lead developers?

They can't ban "all" of them since a lot of Bitcoin developers don't even live in US or in US jurisdiction.

Is there a place where the bitcoin codebase can migrate to?

I don't think developers are going to migrate just because of this!

Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence? Is it possible to build a decentralized and distributed code hosting platform that no one can censor or shut off?

There was a topic about this a while ago when GitHub restricted a lot of accounts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5169284.0

[NeuroticFish]

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin?

I don't think so. Bitcoin is not illegal and its current direction is getting adopted by large institutions. They can easily lobby against this kind of measures if it's the case.

What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos?

Take down is not likely, maybe restricted access, but that means that reading is still possible.
If it's indeed taken down then internet archive still exists, many people also have local backups... it may be a small setback, but far from "the end of the world".

What if they ban all contributors, maintainers, and lead developers? Is there a place where the bitcoin codebase can migrate to? Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence?

In theory anyone can host a system similar to Github on his computer, just if it's not publicly visible there may come trust issues.
And obviously all the bigger systems like this are centralized. The most known is GitLab, but a list would be here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/24256558

Is it possible to build a decentralized and distributed code hosting platform that no one can censor or shut off?

Probably. But first the decentralized file system platforms need to become more robust/reliable, not just new wannabe projects. Also I expect that using such services cannot be for free.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It is important to emphasize that Tornado cash is not a company but a smart contract that no particular person controls

It can't be a smart contract no particular person controls, because someone just controlled it. Banning repository, the main site, the developers etc., would only make it harder to access their software, but if it had been used by thousands of users already, it could also be reused.

This is the same as banning JoinMarket from every clear net site. You've made it more difficult to do CoinJoins, but you haven't prevented its users (makers and takers) from re-sharing the source code, or even stopped their activity.

Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence?

Back to India! SourceForge!

[NotATether]

Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence?

Back to India! SourceForge!

No, you host your own Git server (Gitea). That is what I and many others did when Hollywood came knocking on youtube-dl's door.

As far as Bitcoin the currency is concerned, it's not a mixer or a "laundromat", so it has nothing to fear. Even in a hypothetical situation, we can fight back, print shirts and all kinds of stuff with Bitcoin Core source code on it, just like the 90's cypherpunks fought back for PGP.

[Majestic-milf]

 I feel the actions taken by OFAC are necessary as it could help solve the issue of cybercrimes. Tornado cash seems to be getting notorious for the wrong reasons, as it is.
 The Ronin network heist that saw users and the company lose over $615m was made possible by this tornado cash amongst other crimes and unfortunately, well meaning Americans who use this mixer have seen their accounts banned.
 I strongly doubt if such a thing happens to Bitcoin will hold much ground because it has gained much popularity and countries are embracing it

[jackg]

The got you use/call from the command line is still fully open sourced afaik from when Linus made it.

The server was open sourced too afaik so that can be freely installed or run anyway by the developers (there may be ways it can be easily decentralised and run on core if the community wants to).

[PrimeNumber7]

It is important to emphasize that Tornado cash is not a company but a smart contract that no particular person controls; it is essentially as censorship-resistant and decentralized as the underlying blockchain upon which it is built. In other words, it cannot be "banned" easily.

I don't think it is legal for Tornado Cash to be on the OFAC SDN list. I don't think it meets the criteria.

The fact that Tornado Cash is not an actual entity (nor a person) makes it difficult to get it off the SDN list. I am not an expert in the relevant law, but most likely, someone who sends/receives coin to/from the Tornado Cash smart contract and subsequently encounters problems would need to pursue litigation.

Tornado Cash has essentially been "banned" via intimidation. That means the US government is threatening severe consequences for using this particular smart contract. From a technical perspective, nothing is preventing an arbitrary person from sending an arbitrary amount of coin to the smart contract address, however, I think few (if any) people will because of these threats.

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin? What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos?

See my above comments. The Biden administration is not exactly known for its competence, or its ability to follow the law. From a technical perspective, many people have copies of the code for bitcoin core, and people would need to obtain the code from what they believe to be a reliable source if they need the code for whatever reason. However, I would again refer you to my comments about the intimidation by the US government.

And yet CoinJoin projects on GitHub like Wasabi are never shut down. Hmmm. LOL.

Using automated tools, it is possible to match the inputs and outputs of CJ and Wasabi transactions.

[aliashraf]

OP,
I started the topic @pooya87 referenced above,  eventually mods for an unknown reason decided it as being off-topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5169284.0 I wish yours not to end that way.

That said, it is more than obvious that github is the worst option to rely on for development if you get too addicted and dependent. It is an open question though, how much bitcoin ecosystem is addicted to github, and what is the cure?

[ABCbits]

Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence?

Aside from self-hosted/decentralized solution, Codeberg[1] which operated on Germany could work. I've no idea how they handle sanctions law though.

Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence?

Back to India! SourceForge!

Link you mentioned also say SourceForge comply with U.S sanction list.

It is an open question though, how much bitcoin ecosystem is addicted to github, and what is the cure?

I'd say it's very dependent on GitHub. Aside from Bitcoin Core which have lots of mirror, i found almost all Bitcoin-related source code on GitHub.

[1] https://codeberg.org/
[2] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F

[dkbit98]

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin? What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos?

Microsoft is going to create their own version called Billcoin, because they own Github anf they are the ''good'' guys 
Seriously now, people should think about making transition from Github to Gitlab and other self-hosted alternatives.
It's unlikely this would happen for Bitcoin, but it could happen for many Bitcoin related services and exchanges, so it's better to be vigilant in time.

What if they ban all contributors, maintainers, and lead developers? Is there a place where the bitcoin codebase can migrate to? Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence? Is it possible to build a decentralized and distributed code hosting platform that no one can censor or shut off?

They have no reason to ban Bitcoin developers because they are not doing anything illegal, but in theory they can make anything illegal, even breathing.
Git is already decentralized by design, and there are some hosting option based on ipfs or onion that can be used, and anyone can host their own version.
It's a game of cat and mouse, they can't stop torrents for so many years and they won't be able to stop Bitcoin for sure.

[DaveF]

Not much.

For many (most?) BTC users I don't think it would matter. They are using some wallet or exchange that has nothing or very little direct interaction on github.

Think about it, how many people are REALLY building core from source? Same with electrum and most others, they click a download link and move on. The downloads can be re-directed somewhat quickly and easily and the development moved elsewhere in a few days / weeks. So development would pause / slow for a while as people transitioned to another service and then everything would continue as it was.

BTC price would probably take a hit as everyone ran around panicking but beyond that, not much else would happen in my view.

-Dave

[aliashraf]

The got you use/call from the command line is still fully open sourced afaik from when Linus made it.

The server was open sourced too afaik so that can be freely installed or run anyway by the developers (there may be ways it can be easily decentralised and run on core if the community wants to).

You are right, the core engine is opensource but Github is a proprietary web application with so many features besides being truly a hub where millions of devs are collaborating, years, "GatesHub", made me angry by applying stupid restrictions because of my nationality, an obvious act of discrimination, so I decided to do some research even started designing an alternative application based on GIT engine, documenting some ideas, planing a roadmap, stuff, but I couldn't convince a single investor to support, I'm used to reaching this point, dozens and dozens of projects with no sponsor, so, I moved on.

I'm curious tho, amid escalated regulatory threats and the way scam coin lobbyists are doing their nasty job, is it the right time for me to resume my decentralized Git application project?

"GatesHub" sounds funny, BTW

[suzanne5223]

The one thing I learned is that you can never compare Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies in the market. Yes, Tornado cash was a decentralized, non-custodial privacy solution operated through a smart contract but they know the team who created the platform, and want they want is for them to shut it down just like they did with Blender.
About you bothering if all contributors, dev, etc of Bitcoin are taken down someday?

"Que Sera, Sera and remember the future is not ours to see."

[nullama]

Recently, US Treasury Department has put sanctions[1] on Ethereum mixer Tornado Cash, taken down their website[2], added all associated with the mixer addresses to the OFAC SDN list, and also, which is more important for this topic, compelled Microsoft to suspend Tornado Cash's Github account[3], all repositories and accounts of code maintainers[4]. It is important to emphasize that Tornado cash is not a company but a smart contract that no particular person controls; it is essentially as censorship-resistant and decentralized as the underlying blockchain upon which it is built. In other words, it cannot be "banned" easily.

So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin? What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos? What if they ban all contributors, maintainers, and lead developers? Is there a place where the bitcoin codebase can migrate to? Are there other code hosting platforms besides Github that are not based in the US or upon which US Government sanctions have little to no influence? Is it possible to build a decentralized and distributed code hosting platform that no one can censor or shut off?


[1] https://www.coincenter.org/u-s-treasury-sanction-of-privacy-tools-places-sweeping-restrictions-on-all-americans/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20220808144431/https://tornado.cash/
[3] https://github.com/tornadocash
[4] https://nitter.net/semenov_roman_/status/1556717890308653059

Well, git works in a decentralized manner. This is independent of github, which is just a website.

It's not like, say, subversion (SVN) where you have a server with all the story of the code and you just get a part of it locally. With git, every person that has cloned the source code has a full copy of the entire history of the source code. By the way, Bitcoin was first released via SVN in SourceForge. Times have changed, and now the main Bitcoin client is developed with git on github.

The important thing is that every developer has a full copy of the source code, so it would be simple to just port it to another website that is not github, like gitlab, or literally you could host it in any custom server you want. There's nothing magical about github, it's just very popular.

[pooya87]

it would be simple to just port it to another website that is not github, like gitlab,

For what it's worth in this context there is no difference between github and gitlab since both of their companies are located inside United States so any laws applied to github should also be applied to gitlab.

[NotATether]

it would be simple to just port it to another website that is not github, like gitlab,

For what it's worth in this context there is no difference between github and gitlab since both of their companies are located inside United States so any laws applied to github should also be applied to gitlab.

...Which is why I told everyone to host their own Gitea server. It's not some read-only mirror that lets people download the source code, it lets people sign up and commit code to it, and not only that, but it has access control for multiple repos and IIRC they can even open their own style of issues and PRs.

[witcher_sense]

I'm not familiar with tornado cash whatsoever, and I'm pretty ignorant about smart contracts too, but I did take a look at the article and I think what needs to happen is for this action to be challenged via the legal system, lest it set a precedent that might put into motion all of those github removals and negative actions against bitcoin that you suggested could happen.

I am not a lawyer myself but haven't we already had such a precedent[1] where the US Government tried to prohibit the distribution of open-source code and where the court ruled out that code is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment? In this case, the US Government also attempts to censor free speech expressed via computer language, thereby violating the said amendment.

https://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech

And yet CoinJoin projects on GitHub like Wasabi are never shut down. Hmmm. LOL.

I doubt that they will start sanctioning those "privacy-oriented" projects that voluntarily agreed to infringe on the privacy rights of users. It won't be long before such projects providing "compliant" CoinJoins voluntarily agree to inject  "harmless" backdoors in their software to keep the flow of revenue intact.

There was a topic about this a while ago when GitHub restricted a lot of accounts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5169284.0

achow101 response in the thread you mentioned basically answers my question regarding decentralization of development, but I find it too pessimistic and can't agree it is not possible. If bitcoin cannot be developed or updated in a decentralized manner, it risks being overtaken by centralized decision-makers who will dictate the course bitcoin should follow.

I don't think so. Bitcoin is not illegal and its current direction is getting adopted by large institutions. They can easily lobby against this kind of measures if it's the case.

Honestly, I don't think institutional investors are that interested in bitcoin being censorship-resistant or private, they rather value the "store-of-wealth" aspect of bitcoin that allows them sort of hedge against money printing. If some platforms or persons get banned for doing bitcoin, it is not a big deal as long as bitcoin works and produces new blocks.

In theory anyone can host a system similar to Github on his computer, just if it's not publicly visible there may come trust issues.
And obviously all the bigger systems like this are centralized. The most known is GitLab, but a list would be here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/24256558

Self-hosting of repositories or spinning up a server is a solution to the problem of censorship, but most people won't bother running their own servers.

No, you host your own Git server (Gitea). That is what I and many others did when Hollywood came knocking on youtube-dl's door.

As far as Bitcoin the currency is concerned, it's not a mixer or a "laundromat", so it has nothing to fear. Even in a hypothetical situation, we can fight back, print shirts and all kinds of stuff with Bitcoin Core source code on it, just like the 90's cypherpunks fought back for PGP.

For ordinary individuals like myself who are not developers, self-hosting of a Git server is more of an overkill. I have been thinking about writing a simple bash script that would make automatic backups of the bitcoin repository and put them on an external hard drive. This way, I would ensure that I can access the code regardless of what the US Government thinks about bitcoin.

[NeuroticFish]

I don't think so. Bitcoin is not illegal and its current direction is getting adopted by large institutions. They can easily lobby against this kind of measures if it's the case.

Honestly, I don't think institutional investors are that interested in bitcoin being censorship-resistant or private, they rather value the "store-of-wealth" aspect of bitcoin that allows them sort of hedge against money printing. If some platforms or persons get banned for doing bitcoin, it is not a big deal as long as bitcoin works and produces new blocks.

That's correct. But they will care to know Bitcoin maintains (or grows) its price, and that cannot happen if it's unmaintained, or if people are panicking that the devs cannot access the source code.

Self-hosting of repositories or spinning up a server is a solution to the problem of censorship, but most people won't bother running their own servers.

Although I understand very well why the vast majority don't want to run a server, I tend to believe that our devs are not like the average Joe, nor like the average software developer. Also I think that some reputed entity will step up and say "hey, we've deployed this repository for you to use", in a somewhat similar way the whitepaper got "adopted" on many websites (I know that it's not that much similarity between the two, still...)