Who controls the Bitcoin software?

[foxbitcoin]

Is there anything comparable to a "board of directors" for Bitcoin control?

[DannyHamilton]

Who controls the Bitcoin software?

You do.

You choose what software you are willing to run on your computer.  If a version of the software includes changes that you don't agree with, you can choose not to run it.  If there are specific features that you want in the software, you can either make the changes yourself or you can convince someone else to make the changes for you.

It is decentralized and open source.  All the programming is there for any software programmer to read, study, and modify.

If you try to run software that isn't compatible with the current protocol, then you'll end up with a forked chain.  All the users will then have to choose whether or not they prefer your new-bitcoin over the old-bitcoin.  If they don't prefer what you've done, then your changes will die.  If almost everyone prefers your changes, then the old-bitcoin will die, and yours will replace it.

Is there anything comparable to a "board of directors" for Bitcoin control?

No.  There are various developers of specific wallets (Bitcoin Core, Armory, Electrum, MultiBit, blockchain.info, etc).  Some of them are entirely independent, others answer to some sort of organization that supports that particular wallet.  They all have to adhere to the current protocol unless they can manage to convince the vast majority of users that some change to the protocol would be beneficial.

[Dogtanian]

Who controls the Bitcoin software?

You do.

Simplest answer. There is no one entity or 'board of directors' as it's a decnetralised currency and that's one of the main reasons that makes it great. Please do some more reading about it and you'll soon see it's many benefits and how it isn't run or owned by anyone other than the people who use it.

[CryptoCarmen]

Who controls the Bitcoin software?

You do.

Simplest answer. There is no one entity or 'board of directors' as it's a decnetralised currency and that's one of the main reasons that makes it great. Please do some more reading about it and you'll soon see it's many benefits and how it isn't run or owned by anyone other than the people who use it.

Yes if you will not be cautious enough your bit coins might get stolen. But i think that dont really happen that often, then you get felling when reading this forums.

[jersey19957]

It's decentralized so there isnt any "Ben Bernakle" guy there controling the currency, because unlike FIAT Bitcoin is not an scam currency.

[deebob]

You could also make the mistake some of the media do and consider The Bitcoin Foundation to have some power over the direction of the currency. However, in reality they do not.

[ChuckBuck]

Bitcoin is decentralized, you're basically your own bank.

You're in charge of the type of wallet(hot or cold), the backups, the failsafes, the transaction fees when sending to another party.

That's one of the beauties of it.  It gives the power to the people, not a central bank.

[RodeoX]

If anyone had any control over bitcoin then I would not want them.

[bitsmichel]

Is there anything comparable to a "board of directors" for Bitcoin control?

It is not necessary, bitcoin prevents money theft by a middleman. The network controls itself.

[HELP.org]

Is there anything comparable to a "board of directors" for Bitcoin control?

Yes, there is a group of developers that control how changes are made to the default client.  It allows contributions from anyone but the decisions are made by a few developers who would effectively be the "Board of Directors" you ask about.  As pointed out anyone can create their own version of the software and distribute it to users.  The "Board of Directors" know this is possible so they generally consider and address issues and so far the system seems to be working and nobody has produced a different version that is widely accepted.

[minerpumpkin]

Effectively everyone who's mining controls Bitcoin. They decide which rules they want to be enacted. If they do enact rules, other miners (the majority) don't approve of, their chain gets abandoned and thus effectively is being ignored. It's merely a matter of what the majority decides to accept. That's the beauty. The core developers come up with new ideas though, and also implement them. But if the miners don't approve of them, they won't be enacted.

[DannyHamilton]

Effectively everyone who's mining controls Bitcoin. They decide which rules they want to be enacted.

This is not true. Every user that runs a full node decides which rules will be enacted.

If they do enact rules, other miners (the majority) don't approve of, their chain gets abandoned and thus effectively is being ignored. It's merely a matter of what the majority decides to accept.

This is not true.  Bitcoin is a system that relies on the consensus of the users, not the majority of the miners.

That's the beauty.

The beauty is that the miners can't change anything about the core protocol without the consent of all the users.

The core developers come up with new ideas though, and also implement them. But if the miners don't approve of them, they won't be enacted.

And if the users don't approve of them, then they won't be enacted (even if the miners do approve).

[minerpumpkin]

Effectively everyone who's mining controls Bitcoin. They decide which rules they want to be enacted.

This is not true. Every user that runs a full node decides which rules will be enacted.

If they do enact rules, other miners (the majority) don't approve of, their chain gets abandoned and thus effectively is being ignored. It's merely a matter of what the majority decides to accept.

This is not true.  Bitcoin is a system that relies on the consensus of the users, not the majority of the miners.

That's the beauty.

The beauty is that the miners can't change anything about the core protocol without the consent of all the users.

The core developers come up with new ideas though, and also implement them. But if the miners don't approve of them, they won't be enacted.

And if the users don't approve of them, then they won't be enacted (even if the miners do approve).

The miners add new blocks to the block chain, so unless we change that paradigm, all that full nodes can do is withhold transactions or modify them in some way. That's it.

[DannyHamilton]

The miners add new blocks to the block chain, so unless we change that paradigm, all that full nodes can do is withhold transactions or modify them in some way. That's it.

Perhaps you should try reading the original bitcoin whitepaper so you get a better understanding of how bitcoin works before you try to explain it to others?

The full nodes decide whether a block is valid.  If it doesn't conform to the protocol rules that the full node enforces, then it isn't added to the blockchain.  Then if some other miner creates a block that does conform to the protocol rules, the second miner will be awarded the block reward and will get their block added to the blockchain, while the first miner will see his block ignored by the entire bitcoin userbase.

If the miners that try to change the protocol can convince ALL users to use their new protocol, then their block will get to be added to the blockchain, and the miner that is using the old protocol will see his block ignored and unused.

If only some of the users switch to the new protocol, then the blockchain will split.  A new altcoin will form that uses the new protocol.  The miners that are trying to change the protocol could try and call their altcoin "bitcoin" if they wanted to, but it would be a new-bitcoin.  Meanwhile any miners and users that continue to use the original protocol will still be on the old-bitcoin and will ignore any blocks from the new system.

At that point there are a few possibilities.

It is possible that either the old-bitcoin or new-bitcoin protocol eventually wins out and nearly everybody switches to one protocol or the other.  From then on that protocol will be recognized by the general public as the "real" bitcoin and the other will be some niche system used by fanatics that  the rest of the world ignores.

It is possible that both protocols gain enough support and mining power to remain secure and from then on there are two separate bitcoin systems (bitcoin-1 and bitcoin-2).  When trying to spend your bitcoin, you'll have to make sure that you have coins on the correct network based on what the merchant is willing to accept.  It'd be a bit like choosing between Visa and Mastercard.

It is possible that uncertainty and lack of consensus would destroy the faith in both systems, resulting in a total destruction of value.  Everyone might abandon both bitcoin systems and switch to an entirely different crypto-currency or abandon the concept of a cryptocurrency entirely.

There may be a few other possibilities, but those are the three that first come to mind.

[BurtW]

Great post Danny, good summary of how it really works.

[DannyHamilton]

Great post Danny, good summary of how it really works.

I've typed it and explained it to enough mistaken newbies in the past 2 years I think I can write it in my sleep.

Edit:  Looking back at some of the typos, messed up punctuation, and grammar errors in some of my posts in past threads on this topic, I think I HAVE written it in my sleep.

[cutesakura]

bitcoin is an independent system, so the course is not controlled by software bitcoin, bitcoin distributed from one purse to another purse, and that his move by people who have the bitcoin, so bitcoin controlled by people not by software

[MicroGuy]

Bitcoin is in theory community controlled, but in reality is controlled by the tiny development group that decides when to roll out an update.

[DannyHamilton]

Bitcoin is in theory community controlled, but in realty is controlled by the tiny development group that decides when to roll out an update.

And the other larger (but perhaps still tiny) community that bothers to see what an update does before they choose to install it.

[HELP.org]

Bitcoin is in theory community controlled, but in reality is controlled by the tiny development group that decides when to roll out an update.

They only control as much as people let them control it.  They have no way of stopping it if users go in a different direction.