Bitcoin Core Development: Should it be Privatized?
A debate is raging within the Bitcoin community over a proposal to privatize the development of Bitcoin Core. Developer Bryan Bishop ignited the discussion with a lengthy post arguing that public commentary is leading to misinformation, artificial controversies, and ultimately, a waste of time.
Bishop’s idea emerged after a code change, slated for release in the next version of Bitcoin Core, faced rejection from parts of the community. The pressure became so intense that developer Gloria Zhao temporarily deleted her Twitter account. Upon her return, she suggested that social media might be used for attacks, hindering the approval process.
The Case for Privatization
Bishop believes that exposing technical content to non-experts causes confusion. He argues this has happened before and will happen again. He advocates for restricting access to a collaboration platform like GitLab to vetted members only.
His suggestions include:
- Private issues and pull requests, without public links.
- An open registration or application process for membership.
- Platform administration handling configuration, hosting, moderation, and access control.
- Continued development under the same open-source license.
- Licensing comments and contributions as CC0 or public domain, potentially with PGP signatures.
- The option for contributors to replicate pull requests in public repositories.
Bishop argues that the current open-door policy allows anyone to “defecate on your desk” while developers are working.
“With planning, it’s possible to structure better ways to capture public opinions without mixing off-topic discussions with technical content,” Bishop stated.
He points out that some of his colleagues already work in this manner at private companies focused on Bitcoin development, such as Chaincode and Brink. However, he acknowledges a drawback: “The problem is that many decisions end up being discussed in these private spaces, and those who don’t participate in person are left out,” noting that Bitcoin development is already becoming less public.
Bishop also raises the issue of “brigading,” coordinated social media attacks aimed at manipulating discussions. He believes privatization would prevent this.
“This isn’t about ‘Bitcoin governance,’ but about tools against real threats, including nation-states and groups with vast resources, who hate what Bitcoin represents. This has never happened with any other open-source project.”
Bishop’s post, shared on Google Groups and X (formerly Twitter), drew responses from other developers like Michael Folkson, Antoine Poinsot, and Antoine Riard, with varying degrees of support.
Community Backlash
The proposal has sparked heated debate online. The Bitcoin community has a history of contentious discussions surrounding updates, such as the removal of the OP_RETURN field limit, the long debate around BIP 119, and even the idea of a tail emission, which would exceed Bitcoin’s 21 million unit limit.
Critics argue that removing public input could lead to the rapid approval of detrimental changes, potentially causing forks.
Many of Bishop’s followers have criticized his stance. Here’s a sample of the reactions:
“This is the kind of reactionary nonsense that makes you, the developer and engineer type, completely useless in political and social dynamics. Find a better use for your time, seriously. This is the most embarrassing post I’ve read on this whole subject,” commented Alex B. from ArcadeOS.
“So you want to form a private company to develop a FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) project and blockchain? Isn’t that basically a secession, for the base to take control? Nobody in the world wants a privatized currency. FOSS is a feature. If you can’t handle the pressure, maybe this isn’t for you anymore,” said another user.
“This moderation problem is rare and mainly occurs with controversial PRs. Overall, collaboration on GitHub works well. Your proposed solution seems like overkill, like using a hammer to crush a fly that’s already gone,” commented developer Nicolas Dorier.
“A lot of pretty talk, just to say that Bitcoin Core should be isolated from the people it affects. If you think developers should operate in private silos without accountability, go build Ethereum. Bitcoin doesn’t need a clique. It needs a cleaning,” said a fourth user.
The post has garnered over 70 comments, with few expressing support for the idea. One comment questioned whether the proposal was inspired by Google’s recent announcement that it would be developing Android OS privately.
Another concern raised is that this policy would close doors for new Bitcoin developers.
The Discussion Continues
The debate is ongoing, with discussions taking place on Google Groups and X.
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…
— Bryan Bishop (@kanzure) June 10, 2025
Stay ahead of the curve in the fast-paced crypto world – explore the latest updates and trends at Cryptonewsfeeds.com.
