* Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core
2025-06-10 20:31 [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core Bryan Bishop
@ 2025-06-10 23:13 ` Dave Scotese
2025-06-11 8:38 ` [bitcoindev] " Michael Folkson
2025-06-12 16:45 ` The Case for Decentralizing Bitcoin Core Development [was Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core] Christopher Allen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dave Scotese @ 2025-06-10 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bryan Bishop; +Cc: bitcoindev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 18283 bytes --]
Thanks for the great write-up!
I don't think "Please be less shy about moderation on Github" is too much
to ask. I'm not sure much else needs to be done. I also suspect that
there's a lot of deep understanding of the tools (github, gitlab, etc.)
that can already be used to thwart coercive brigading. Perhaps those who
control the public facing accounts could benefit from some help from people
who understand those tools better than I do.
Dave Scotese.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 1:40 PM Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com> wrote:
> The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core:
>
> I believe that reflection is critical for curiosity, understanding,
> improvement, and progress. And recent activity on the Bitcoin Core github
> account has given me an opportunity to re-evaluate my beliefs about
> open-source software development on GitHub.
>
>
> # The ongoing problem
>
> What happened was nothing new. It has happened before and it will happen
> again, especially if we do nothing new or different. Essentially there is a
> recurring pattern of non-contributors (sometimes even non-developers)
> intruding into an online forum intended mainly for people collaborating on
> Bitcoin Core to work together on whatever they are working on. This often
> causes issues like wasting people's valuable time, creating manufactured
> controversy, misinformation, etc. It is trivial to see how exposure to deep
> technical content can cause confusion or misunderstanding for non-technical
> people who may not even know the ethos of open-source development or what
> bitcoin developers really do or believe about what they do. Unsolicited
> feedback from random/new people and even noise can sometimes be useful and
> thankfully it's impossible to eliminate online forums for providing that,
> but here I'm specifically focusing on areas intended for dev collaboration.
>
> What we want as developers is to collaborate with whoever we wish on
> whatever our hearts desire, and we can freely do that over the Internet or
> in person on any project we see fit. Many of us choose to work on Bitcoin.
> Some of us choose to work on Bitcoin Core. It is an entirely voluntary
> effort and nobody owes any obligation to anyone else but to themselves.
> Indeed, even non-developer bitcoiners are not obligated, like they are not
> obligated to run code written by people they find disagreeable if for some
> reason they cannot find sufficient reason to not run code in the code
> itself.
>
> You can argue there might be ethical or moral obligations created by
> working on open-source software, beyond those created by the license, but I
> don't buy that argument. There are no additional explicit obligations
> beyond the license. I'll add, though, that many developers have their own
> moral values and beliefs about how they should act and behave, and how that
> informs who they choose to collaborate with, which is great! Many believe
> they have a personal moral value of informing uneducated people, or
> protecting people from security threats, or hundreds of other particular
> preferences and opinions. All of these are fantastic and I am glad these
> preferences or beliefs exist... but they cannot be coercively applied and
> we should not allow the bitcoin project, or Bitcoin Core, or github, to be
> a platform for inflicting coercive beliefs upon developers that have gifted
> us so much time, energy and efforts on a historically and systemically
> critical development.
>
> Therefore, I think there might be an opportunity here to re-evaluate the
> nature of open-source software development. I think there is an opportunity
> to re-evaluate how we choose to work together. What if there was a better
> way to collaborate on the work we do for bitcoin? What would it look like?
> What would be different? What would be kept the same?
>
>
> # GitHub
>
> Unfortunately the situation is that GitHub does not have good moderation
> controls and was only built for a very narrow concept of open source
> development. The solution to brigading is better controls around the
> presentation layer or requiring some sort of membership. If you just have a
> perpetual open door policy straight from reddit into your developer den,
> then yeah people are going to walk in and take a shit on your desk where
> you were working with another dev.. With some thinking I'm sure we can
> structure better ways to get exposure to general public sentiment or
> opinion, while also structuring a space for development to take place that
> does not require blindly mixing off-topic content with developer content.
>
>
> # Privatization
>
> Here, I would like to make the case for privatizing Bitcoin Core software
> development into a members-only gitlab or other kind of open-source
> software collaboration system. It would have the following properties.
> Issues and pull requests would be private and not subject to public
> hyperlinking. Anyone can register or apply for access. Whoever runs the
> site/repository would be responsible for configuration, hosting, setup,
> moderation, access control, etc. Software development would continue under
> the same license. New issues, comments, code review comments would possibly
> be licensed under a specific license like CC0 or public domain or some
> other license, possibly with PGP-signature to track agreement if we care
> about comments licensing. Pull requests can be cross-posted to any number
> of repositories either public or private as much as any contributor wishes,
> except to the point where any norm violation or spam violation occurs for
> the respective publishing systems of course.
>
>
> # Office culture
>
> An alternative to what I am proposing is already happening: development
> inside closed offices (Chaincode, Brink, Localhost, etc), which is less
> accessible and less open than a invite-only developer collab site. And also
> less "open development" than the current Bitcoin Core GitHub project. So a
> failure to sort out these issues with Bitcoin Core collaboration can and
> has already produced solutions that are functionally less inclusive than an
> online member-only source forge. It is to the detriment of the open project
> that so much gets discussed inside these private offices and many of us are
> not able to contribute that way, and there ought to be something between a
> public github that the general public can brigade and closed offices on the
> other end of the spectrum.
>
>
> # How it would work
>
> Contributors would be free to collaborate on any branch, pull request, or
> privatized fork, or even public fork. Issues, issue comments, pull request
> comments, code review comments, and miscellaneous discussions can also be
> posted internally. Code can come from inside the members-only repository,
> or it can be contributed from outside sources if someone pulls it in,
> proposes it, or otherwise posts those patches.
>
> Releases can be cut and source code published all at once, if that is
> desirable to anyone. However, I suspect that for Bitcoin Core, contributors
> would likely push changes out to various public access githubs or other
> locations on an hourly, daily or regular basis. Bitcoin Core, as it exists
> today, could do the same for pull requests, code review comments, etc, and
> post them publicly on a website. Anyone would be free to make a website
> where any person, including non-developers and including non-contributors,
> could freely post code review or comments. This could even happen on the
> current GH bitcoin/bitcoin repository. For example, any of the private code
> review comments can be posted directly into the PR on GH. PGP signatures
> can be used for verifiable comment attribution. Or another website can be
> linked from a GH PR to display the private-originated review history.
>
> Brigading will be severely reduced and eliminated. You can pass around a
> link to the repository and a comment or issue but nobody will be able to
> see the content unless they are a registered member, which the vast
> majority of all internet people won't be. This will severely curtail
> brigading and spam while also enabling continued ongoing development
> activities for collaborators.
>
> Bitcoin Core itself has releases and maintainers that push the release
> button. I fully believe that even after privatizing Bitcoin Core that they
> still will behave using the same norms and beliefs and systems that they
> presently do. Public code review will still continue. Public releases will
> still happen. There will still be open source code. But the ability of
> attackers to steal attention or time from bitcoin developers will be
> severely reduced. Likewise for attackers ability to coerce bitcoin
> developers through public spectacle where they do their core work. I
> believe that the community would be more productive and more energized if
> we regularly used a privatized collaboration platform.
>
> In practice, the way that this would roll out is that the GitHub would
> continue to be the GitHub and would not really change. There would be a
> separate private area for some developers to work together. Then they would
> throw it over the wall or have some sort of (possibly real-time)
> synchronization protocol to synchronize pull requests to the public GitHub
> repository. If you want a public link on X.com then link to that, but a
> link to the membership-required site won't work for non-members.
>
> For the private work space: I think registration, coupled with a delay,
> coupled with a probationary period would probably be sufficient. Possibly
> also with review or, what could be interesting as if at least two people
> out of any of the members have to recommend the user for entry. Or, you can
> do proof-of-work to get entry and post something, and it's subject to
> moderator review until 2-of-n approve your membership? I would advocate for
> very strong norms as to moderation and rules of engagement such as, if you
> just show up to cause chaos then you lose your access to the members-only
> place and you will have to post code somewhere else on the internet. It
> won't be that anyone can show up and cause chaos and never be silenced or
> banned.
>
> Adoption: would not be too difficult, as only two or three developers can
> privately experience some benefits. They can also use private one-time
> expiring links to temporarily include non-members as they see fit.
>
>
> # Theory crafting
>
> Non-technical activist movements have a history of making open discussion
> forums non-viable. Those same non-technical activist movements also have a
> history of making many non-viable forks, due to for example a lack of
> technical expertise in said movements. I would like to find ways to
> redirect efforts that would manifest as unusable discussion forums,
> instead, towards the creation of more non-viable forks.
>
> We can remain committed to making forking as frictionless as we can, while
> also increasing the friction of participation of non-technical actors in
> members-only technical discussion forums. The existence of members-only
> technical discussion forums does not preclude the existence of public
> channels, nor does it prohibit the flow of information in either direction.
> It merely carves out a specific space and area.
>
> Something along the lines of: "We are willing to commit to your freedom to
> create and run software of your choosing. We are not committed to
> internalizing often coercive demands that *we* be the ones to create the
> exact software of your choosing. We hope that you like the software we work
> on, and we welcome your feedback in the right time and place, just not in
> private developer spaces."
>
> Open source software has a lot of history behind it and established
> developer culture norms. Open here usually refers to the source code
> licensing (see early 90s work from Foresight Institute's Christine
> Peterson's Open Source Definition initiative). "Open" development does not
> mean "open to coercion". It feels very weird to write an email that
> essentially amounts to reminding grown adults that they can freely
> collaborate in any way they wish, and that they do not have to invite or
> subject themselves to active ongoing attempts of coercion. Even if it's
> from "the public". There are free-for-all places all over the Internet to
> post that kind of content, or to read it and review it. There are also
> other possibilities for structured access and presentation of that kind of
> data. For example, a reverse Bitcoin Optech that curates that sort of
> information from around the web. I suspect that over time what has happened
> is that of the people who refuse to be subjected to coercion attempts from
> internet mobs have simply left the public collaboration process to either
> retreat into office in-person settings or stop contributing to bitcoin
> development entirely...
>
> Also, it does not feel good to ban people or clean up brigades to restore
> structure or order etc. which is partly why some core contributors have
> been so hesitant to hit the GH moderation buttons more often, plus many of
> us just wanna code or build cool stuff. It's a partner to free speech..
> your free speech means that you don't have to say things you don't agree
> with, including platforming people who disagree with you or hate you
> outright. "Coercive platforming" happens when others demand you platform
> their speech content even if it's off-topic or low signal or actively
> directly hostile to you. Meanwhile dev attention is scarce and while it's
> individually regulated (as it should be), care should be taken to monitor
> if the obvious default regulation is for developers to simply disengage or
> not engage at all, which would be a detriment to the bitcoin project.
> Instead we can filter the noise going into the system at the top of the
> funnel instead of the bottom (comments level).
>
> One goal is that we are interested in having more developers join and
> collaborate on Bitcoin Core. Creating an environment conducive to new
> developers is important and if they have to also be subjected to a bunch of
> noise just to collaborate on code on GitHub then I think that is
> sub-optimal and a self-defeating strategy if one of the goals is growth in
> the number of developers or contributors.
>
> What I think people might be upset about this idea to privatize is that,
> to the extent that people perceive that they are currently able to coerce
> developers to work on specific things any given developer wouldn't have
> worked on otherwise, and if any developer collaborations voluntarily
> retreat to their own private work area, then I think those same people
> might get upset to the extent they perceive or feel that they are losing a
> coercive lever over developers that they previously thought they had
> (perhaps permanent) power over. In reality, it has always been a voluntary
> non-coercive arrangement, it's just that people get confused about the
> social dynamics and forget this isn't feudalism slave labor era anymore.
>
>
>
> # End of remarks
>
> Building this sort of protection measure is important for the ongoing and
> future success of the project. As a moderator in the bitcoin-dev project it
> is hard for me to communicate the levels of attacks that we have seen and
> that I expect to see going forward. We are talking about a trillion dollar
> system. We are talking about disrupting tens of trillions of dollars of
> value. And there are massive adversarial forces, including nation state and
> non-state actors with tremendously deep resources, that are completely
> adverse to what we stand for and what we believe and what bitcoin is or
> what bitcoin will become. These sorts of threats are completely unlike any
> other open source software project has ever seen, and if anything I am
> underestimating what we are up against. This isn't to say to throw out our
> values and enact bitcoin governance or whatever; instead it's an
> opportunity to look at what tools we have at our disposal to counter these
> threats and ensure our continued productivity and that our open community
> can remain open without also cutting ourselves off.
>
>
>
>
> Humbly my own,
>
> Bryan Bishop aka kanzure
>
> June 2025
>
>
>
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism
> https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/19
> https://x.com/kanzure/status/1932534820607045947
>
> P.S. I still think bitcoin-core/meta on GH should be deleted. It's
> relatively recent and nothing of value will be lost that cannot be
> re-hosted should it ever prove necessary to do so.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3phFFB_W3cHQLroUJcPDZKsjB8w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CABaSBax-meEsC2013zKYJnC3phFFB_W3cHQLroUJcPDZKsjB8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAGLBAhePmsCcC1b0m5m-coqfMchqVFNNgqdyfkZosiRWt%2BnRow%40mail.gmail.com.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19359 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [bitcoindev] Re: The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core
2025-06-10 20:31 [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core Bryan Bishop
2025-06-10 23:13 ` Dave Scotese
@ 2025-06-11 8:38 ` Michael Folkson
2025-06-12 16:45 ` The Case for Decentralizing Bitcoin Core Development [was Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core] Christopher Allen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Folkson @ 2025-06-11 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20906 bytes --]
Hi Bryan
Thanks for your email and thanks for maintaining an archive of the
bitcoin-dev mailing list.
I'm personally sympathetic with a lot of this with one significant caveat.
I've stated this caveat multiple times before ([0], [1], [2] etc) but I
will state it again because it is critically important and people who
really should know better (not necessarily you) should have understood and
accepted this by now.
A consensus rule change is different to any other change (transaction relay
policy, wallet, GUI, test etc). If consensus compatible forks of Bitcoin
Core want to maintain different mempool policies, wallet features, GUIs etc
they are free to with no chain split risk assuming they don't accidentally
introduce a consensus bug which Core has made as easy to avoid as possible
over the years. Hence we have seen Knots, Libre Relay etc introduce
different mempool policies to Core without a chain split or a split of the
network. The recent statement by Core stating what its current contributors
prioritize when designing transaction relay policy [3] and the
communication around the recent transaction relay policy pull request
(#32404) merge decision [4] I thought was excellent. However to take that
precedent on Core *transaction relay policy* (a signed statement by a set
of Core contributors and signposting around the merge decision) and assume
it can be applied to a *consensus rule change* (CTV and CSFS or whatever
the current set of opcodes is currently in vogue) requesting Core
contributors prioritize review within 6 months is short sighted to put it
mildly. Core can make unilateral decisions on transaction policy because
consensus compatible forks can have different transaction policy without
splitting the chain or the network. It can't make unilateral decisions on a
consensus rule change. If there is significant disagreement on a consensus
rule change an attempted consensus rule change can split the network and
create two currencies.
Hence if Core wants to make merge decisions on transaction relay policy
pull requests based on its recent statement I think that is fine. If it
wants to hide comments on such a pull request that don't accept that
statement I think that is fine. But if it wants to create a set of
contributors who think they can effectively decide on consensus rule
changes without the input of the broader community that is clearly not
fine.
There is a secondary issue that in a world of consensus compatible forks
Core really shouldn't make maintaining those consensus compatible forks
unnecessarily difficult or impossible. If users disagree with that
aforementioned transaction relay statement for example but Core also makes
merge decisions that makes maintaining consensus compatible forks
unnecessarily difficult or impossible then those users have nowhere to go.
In that sense Core is shaping up to effectively be like the Linux kernel
and however the project is managed in the repo it needs to be monitoring
and engaging with consensus compatible forks.
Thanks
Michael
[0]: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/LmX3Gnfkf1T0Eb_wUXxPe8c0Tf2DNipfIqufkRS6oOPhttr4iZIOWtjUL_7QkcWEHr8eFvehHooaM140ZBKLwi98F5NwyQKSyEhAPZDK1YQ=@protonmail.com/
[1]: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/XuO20TMFGBqz53WYWxi9bgAdB3iGmqEIUE84AupRxCpHQVd3-YbGVzZUFz21dOgb_AgwlGWaruzE8NGxhes6HCKHpRZLmL1d1kNu1yobAIU=@protonmail.com/
[2]: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/uuq_VbxJp50_-m4ufKpEhJOknhZ0pvK8ioDabCkxtDjBYauO3gLKrj2O2tjS6YIFOnJLyaZg6-LENzom1DyQQ3TyMLIIaGz5IRrzrKB8gRs=@protonmail.com/
[3]: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
[4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2955614286
On Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 11:40:15 PM UTC+3 Bryan Bishop wrote:
> The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core:
>
> I believe that reflection is critical for curiosity, understanding,
> improvement, and progress. And recent activity on the Bitcoin Core github
> account has given me an opportunity to re-evaluate my beliefs about
> open-source software development on GitHub.
>
>
> # The ongoing problem
>
> What happened was nothing new. It has happened before and it will happen
> again, especially if we do nothing new or different. Essentially there is a
> recurring pattern of non-contributors (sometimes even non-developers)
> intruding into an online forum intended mainly for people collaborating on
> Bitcoin Core to work together on whatever they are working on. This often
> causes issues like wasting people's valuable time, creating manufactured
> controversy, misinformation, etc. It is trivial to see how exposure to deep
> technical content can cause confusion or misunderstanding for non-technical
> people who may not even know the ethos of open-source development or what
> bitcoin developers really do or believe about what they do. Unsolicited
> feedback from random/new people and even noise can sometimes be useful and
> thankfully it's impossible to eliminate online forums for providing that,
> but here I'm specifically focusing on areas intended for dev collaboration.
>
> What we want as developers is to collaborate with whoever we wish on
> whatever our hearts desire, and we can freely do that over the Internet or
> in person on any project we see fit. Many of us choose to work on Bitcoin.
> Some of us choose to work on Bitcoin Core. It is an entirely voluntary
> effort and nobody owes any obligation to anyone else but to themselves.
> Indeed, even non-developer bitcoiners are not obligated, like they are not
> obligated to run code written by people they find disagreeable if for some
> reason they cannot find sufficient reason to not run code in the code
> itself.
>
> You can argue there might be ethical or moral obligations created by
> working on open-source software, beyond those created by the license, but I
> don't buy that argument. There are no additional explicit obligations
> beyond the license. I'll add, though, that many developers have their own
> moral values and beliefs about how they should act and behave, and how that
> informs who they choose to collaborate with, which is great! Many believe
> they have a personal moral value of informing uneducated people, or
> protecting people from security threats, or hundreds of other particular
> preferences and opinions. All of these are fantastic and I am glad these
> preferences or beliefs exist... but they cannot be coercively applied and
> we should not allow the bitcoin project, or Bitcoin Core, or github, to be
> a platform for inflicting coercive beliefs upon developers that have gifted
> us so much time, energy and efforts on a historically and systemically
> critical development.
>
> Therefore, I think there might be an opportunity here to re-evaluate the
> nature of open-source software development. I think there is an opportunity
> to re-evaluate how we choose to work together. What if there was a better
> way to collaborate on the work we do for bitcoin? What would it look like?
> What would be different? What would be kept the same?
>
>
> # GitHub
>
> Unfortunately the situation is that GitHub does not have good moderation
> controls and was only built for a very narrow concept of open source
> development. The solution to brigading is better controls around the
> presentation layer or requiring some sort of membership. If you just have a
> perpetual open door policy straight from reddit into your developer den,
> then yeah people are going to walk in and take a shit on your desk where
> you were working with another dev.. With some thinking I'm sure we can
> structure better ways to get exposure to general public sentiment or
> opinion, while also structuring a space for development to take place that
> does not require blindly mixing off-topic content with developer content.
>
>
> # Privatization
>
> Here, I would like to make the case for privatizing Bitcoin Core software
> development into a members-only gitlab or other kind of open-source
> software collaboration system. It would have the following properties.
> Issues and pull requests would be private and not subject to public
> hyperlinking. Anyone can register or apply for access. Whoever runs the
> site/repository would be responsible for configuration, hosting, setup,
> moderation, access control, etc. Software development would continue under
> the same license. New issues, comments, code review comments would possibly
> be licensed under a specific license like CC0 or public domain or some
> other license, possibly with PGP-signature to track agreement if we care
> about comments licensing. Pull requests can be cross-posted to any number
> of repositories either public or private as much as any contributor wishes,
> except to the point where any norm violation or spam violation occurs for
> the respective publishing systems of course.
>
>
> # Office culture
>
> An alternative to what I am proposing is already happening: development
> inside closed offices (Chaincode, Brink, Localhost, etc), which is less
> accessible and less open than a invite-only developer collab site. And also
> less "open development" than the current Bitcoin Core GitHub project. So a
> failure to sort out these issues with Bitcoin Core collaboration can and
> has already produced solutions that are functionally less inclusive than an
> online member-only source forge. It is to the detriment of the open project
> that so much gets discussed inside these private offices and many of us are
> not able to contribute that way, and there ought to be something between a
> public github that the general public can brigade and closed offices on the
> other end of the spectrum.
>
>
> # How it would work
>
> Contributors would be free to collaborate on any branch, pull request, or
> privatized fork, or even public fork. Issues, issue comments, pull request
> comments, code review comments, and miscellaneous discussions can also be
> posted internally. Code can come from inside the members-only repository,
> or it can be contributed from outside sources if someone pulls it in,
> proposes it, or otherwise posts those patches.
>
> Releases can be cut and source code published all at once, if that is
> desirable to anyone. However, I suspect that for Bitcoin Core, contributors
> would likely push changes out to various public access githubs or other
> locations on an hourly, daily or regular basis. Bitcoin Core, as it exists
> today, could do the same for pull requests, code review comments, etc, and
> post them publicly on a website. Anyone would be free to make a website
> where any person, including non-developers and including non-contributors,
> could freely post code review or comments. This could even happen on the
> current GH bitcoin/bitcoin repository. For example, any of the private code
> review comments can be posted directly into the PR on GH. PGP signatures
> can be used for verifiable comment attribution. Or another website can be
> linked from a GH PR to display the private-originated review history.
>
> Brigading will be severely reduced and eliminated. You can pass around a
> link to the repository and a comment or issue but nobody will be able to
> see the content unless they are a registered member, which the vast
> majority of all internet people won't be. This will severely curtail
> brigading and spam while also enabling continued ongoing development
> activities for collaborators.
>
> Bitcoin Core itself has releases and maintainers that push the release
> button. I fully believe that even after privatizing Bitcoin Core that they
> still will behave using the same norms and beliefs and systems that they
> presently do. Public code review will still continue. Public releases will
> still happen. There will still be open source code. But the ability of
> attackers to steal attention or time from bitcoin developers will be
> severely reduced. Likewise for attackers ability to coerce bitcoin
> developers through public spectacle where they do their core work. I
> believe that the community would be more productive and more energized if
> we regularly used a privatized collaboration platform.
>
> In practice, the way that this would roll out is that the GitHub would
> continue to be the GitHub and would not really change. There would be a
> separate private area for some developers to work together. Then they would
> throw it over the wall or have some sort of (possibly real-time)
> synchronization protocol to synchronize pull requests to the public GitHub
> repository. If you want a public link on X.com then link to that, but a
> link to the membership-required site won't work for non-members.
>
> For the private work space: I think registration, coupled with a delay,
> coupled with a probationary period would probably be sufficient. Possibly
> also with review or, what could be interesting as if at least two people
> out of any of the members have to recommend the user for entry. Or, you can
> do proof-of-work to get entry and post something, and it's subject to
> moderator review until 2-of-n approve your membership? I would advocate for
> very strong norms as to moderation and rules of engagement such as, if you
> just show up to cause chaos then you lose your access to the members-only
> place and you will have to post code somewhere else on the internet. It
> won't be that anyone can show up and cause chaos and never be silenced or
> banned.
>
> Adoption: would not be too difficult, as only two or three developers can
> privately experience some benefits. They can also use private one-time
> expiring links to temporarily include non-members as they see fit.
>
>
> # Theory crafting
>
> Non-technical activist movements have a history of making open discussion
> forums non-viable. Those same non-technical activist movements also have a
> history of making many non-viable forks, due to for example a lack of
> technical expertise in said movements. I would like to find ways to
> redirect efforts that would manifest as unusable discussion forums,
> instead, towards the creation of more non-viable forks.
>
> We can remain committed to making forking as frictionless as we can, while
> also increasing the friction of participation of non-technical actors in
> members-only technical discussion forums. The existence of members-only
> technical discussion forums does not preclude the existence of public
> channels, nor does it prohibit the flow of information in either direction.
> It merely carves out a specific space and area.
>
> Something along the lines of: "We are willing to commit to your freedom to
> create and run software of your choosing. We are not committed to
> internalizing often coercive demands that *we* be the ones to create the
> exact software of your choosing. We hope that you like the software we work
> on, and we welcome your feedback in the right time and place, just not in
> private developer spaces."
>
> Open source software has a lot of history behind it and established
> developer culture norms. Open here usually refers to the source code
> licensing (see early 90s work from Foresight Institute's Christine
> Peterson's Open Source Definition initiative). "Open" development does not
> mean "open to coercion". It feels very weird to write an email that
> essentially amounts to reminding grown adults that they can freely
> collaborate in any way they wish, and that they do not have to invite or
> subject themselves to active ongoing attempts of coercion. Even if it's
> from "the public". There are free-for-all places all over the Internet to
> post that kind of content, or to read it and review it. There are also
> other possibilities for structured access and presentation of that kind of
> data. For example, a reverse Bitcoin Optech that curates that sort of
> information from around the web. I suspect that over time what has happened
> is that of the people who refuse to be subjected to coercion attempts from
> internet mobs have simply left the public collaboration process to either
> retreat into office in-person settings or stop contributing to bitcoin
> development entirely...
>
> Also, it does not feel good to ban people or clean up brigades to restore
> structure or order etc. which is partly why some core contributors have
> been so hesitant to hit the GH moderation buttons more often, plus many of
> us just wanna code or build cool stuff. It's a partner to free speech..
> your free speech means that you don't have to say things you don't agree
> with, including platforming people who disagree with you or hate you
> outright. "Coercive platforming" happens when others demand you platform
> their speech content even if it's off-topic or low signal or actively
> directly hostile to you. Meanwhile dev attention is scarce and while it's
> individually regulated (as it should be), care should be taken to monitor
> if the obvious default regulation is for developers to simply disengage or
> not engage at all, which would be a detriment to the bitcoin project.
> Instead we can filter the noise going into the system at the top of the
> funnel instead of the bottom (comments level).
>
> One goal is that we are interested in having more developers join and
> collaborate on Bitcoin Core. Creating an environment conducive to new
> developers is important and if they have to also be subjected to a bunch of
> noise just to collaborate on code on GitHub then I think that is
> sub-optimal and a self-defeating strategy if one of the goals is growth in
> the number of developers or contributors.
>
> What I think people might be upset about this idea to privatize is that,
> to the extent that people perceive that they are currently able to coerce
> developers to work on specific things any given developer wouldn't have
> worked on otherwise, and if any developer collaborations voluntarily
> retreat to their own private work area, then I think those same people
> might get upset to the extent they perceive or feel that they are losing a
> coercive lever over developers that they previously thought they had
> (perhaps permanent) power over. In reality, it has always been a voluntary
> non-coercive arrangement, it's just that people get confused about the
> social dynamics and forget this isn't feudalism slave labor era anymore.
>
>
>
> # End of remarks
>
> Building this sort of protection measure is important for the ongoing and
> future success of the project. As a moderator in the bitcoin-dev project it
> is hard for me to communicate the levels of attacks that we have seen and
> that I expect to see going forward. We are talking about a trillion dollar
> system. We are talking about disrupting tens of trillions of dollars of
> value. And there are massive adversarial forces, including nation state and
> non-state actors with tremendously deep resources, that are completely
> adverse to what we stand for and what we believe and what bitcoin is or
> what bitcoin will become. These sorts of threats are completely unlike any
> other open source software project has ever seen, and if anything I am
> underestimating what we are up against. This isn't to say to throw out our
> values and enact bitcoin governance or whatever; instead it's an
> opportunity to look at what tools we have at our disposal to counter these
> threats and ensure our continued productivity and that our open community
> can remain open without also cutting ourselves off.
>
>
>
>
> Humbly my own,
>
> Bryan Bishop aka kanzure
>
> June 2025
>
>
>
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism
> https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/19
> https://x.com/kanzure/status/1932534820607045947
>
> P.S. I still think bitcoin-core/meta on GH should be deleted. It's
> relatively recent and nothing of value will be lost that cannot be
> re-hosted should it ever prove necessary to do so.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/daf2b47a-eff6-42ab-891b-a15f9f9fcd85n%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 22328 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* The Case for Decentralizing Bitcoin Core Development [was Re: [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core]
2025-06-10 20:31 [bitcoindev] The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core Bryan Bishop
2025-06-10 23:13 ` Dave Scotese
2025-06-11 8:38 ` [bitcoindev] " Michael Folkson
@ 2025-06-12 16:45 ` Christopher Allen
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Allen @ 2025-06-12 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bryan Bishop; +Cc: bitcoindev
In response to: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/43yjt8MXMvo
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 1:40 PM Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com> wrote:
> The case for privatizing Bitcoin Core:
The concerns Bryan raised about coordination noise and GitHub's
moderation limitations are real. We've seen how open platforms without
clear boundaries invite persistent disruption — not just trolling, but
sustained efforts to derail meaningful technical collaboration.
But rather than framing this as a call for *privatization*, I think
it's more productive to view the problem through the lens of
*decentralization*. Git is already a distributed protocol — we should
be using it that way. We need infrastructure that supports secure,
accountable collaboration without relying on centralized gatekeepers,
corporate platforms, or closed offices.
## Git is Already Distributed — Let's Lean Into That
Git is a distributed version control system by design. In principle,
any developer or group of developers can work together on their own
forks, branches, or remotes — and coordinate externally from GitHub if
necessary. What we often lack is robust and usable *infrastructure*
for decentralized collaboration: systems that offer structure,
provenance, access control, and cryptographic guarantees, without
reverting to centralized or closed development.
## Open Source vs. Open Development
It’s also important to recognize that an open-source license alone is
insufficient for true "Open Development". Sustainable open development
depends not just on permissive licensing, but on values like
transparent governance, verifiable contributions, and non-coercive
collaboration. "Open Development" is a broader process that considers
who can participate, how trust is earned, and what incentives shape
behavior. These questions are especially vital in a high-stakes
project such as Bitcoin Core.
I've written an article on Open Development
https://www.blockchaincommons.com/articles/Open-Development/ that I
invite you to read as a parallel stream to this discussion.
## Transparency Is Not a Given — It’s a Design Decision
One criticism that has surfaced around Open Development is the idea
that Bitcoin Core developers have a "duty of transparency." But this
expectation is rarely defined. Is it a duty to publish *code*, to
explain *decisions*, to make *deliberations* public in real time — or
something else entirely?
If transparency is important to Bitcoin’s social contract, then we
should talk about what it actually entails, how it's balanced against
resilience, and where it begins and ends. Developers already meet
significant transparency obligations: reproducible builds, tagged
releases, and open review processes. That’s not nothing.
But assuming an *unlimited* or *unspecified* duty to perform
transparently — in every venue, at every stage — can easily become a
vector for coercion or burnout. Like every part of this system,
transparency needs intentional architecture, not moral ambiguity.
## A Proof-of-Concept: Open Integrity Project
I help maintain the [Open Integrity
Project](https://github.com/OpenIntegrityProject/core), which explores
how Git repositories can be used as cryptographic roots of trust. Our
work includes:
* "Inception Commits" to establish a verifiable origin.
* A signed `.allowed_commit_signers` policy to verify contributors.
* Future plans for branch distribution via Bittorrent's DHT,
FROST-based threshold signing, decentralized governance, and other
methods.
Open Integrity is *not a proposal for Bitcoin Core Developement*. But
it proves that decentralized coordination around open-source codebases
can be more secure, intentional, and resilient — while remaining
transparent and permissively licensed.
## Radicle and Other Directions
Radicle (https://radicle.xyz) is another working example. It shows
that peer-to-peer Git hosting and identity infrastructure are real and
usable today. It may not fit every contributor, but it makes clear
that **decentralization** — not privatization — is a viable and
thoughtful alternative to GitHub’s constraints.
## Structuring for Sovereignty
Public dev spaces come with power dynamics — and attackers exploit
them. We need tools and norms that protect developer autonomy without
killing transparency. That’s not impossible. But we have to build for
it, not assume it comes for free.
As I said, we shouldn't frame these transitions as “privatizing”
development, but we should instead focus on how to **structure
decentralized collaboration** more effectively — with clear
boundaries, strong tooling, and healthy expectations. Still open, but
designed to resist coercion and chaos.
Let’s explore optional decentralized spaces where trust is earned,
review is rigorous, and participation remains open — but under
conditions that developers can actually work within. No gates, just
better scaffolding.
-- Christopher Allen, Blockchain Commons
P.S. As context for those who don't know me: I've been working on
secure software since the early '90s — contributing to projects like
RSAREF (used by PGP, Digicash, and other early cryptographic tools),
SSLREF which led to TLS 1.0, and more recently the W3C DID 1.0 spec.
I’ve participated in and helped shape multiple open-source and
standards communities over the decades, including during my brief time
at Blockstream and now with Blockchain Commons. My long view informs
my belief that better tooling and clearer boundaries can preserve both
openness and resilience.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CACrqygAwod5_gM5Jqt15ZGsBA%2BorcOZ_r0J2%3DKPBN8%2BeTVnKqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread