<p>To date GitHub has <a href="https://github.com/1995parham/github-do-not-ban-us" rel="nofollow noreferrer">restricted</a> developer accounts from Iran, Crimea, Cuba, North Korea and has taken down certain projects (e.g. an Ethereum open source privacy project <a href="https://github.com/tornadocash" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tornado Cash</a> though Tornado Cash is now back up). GitHub is owned by a US corporation (Microsoft) and is clearly at a minimum bound by US law and US sanctions. There seems to be evidence that it is willing to take actions beyond what it is required by US law and US sanctions though as you suggest.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have not seen any contingencies for planning the social move to those repos and organizing developer efforts for maintaining Core in the face of a GitHub ban.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No such plans have been made public as far as I'm aware. Recall that no maintainer or no contributor can bind the project to a particular future contingency plan even if they drafted such a plan.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It seems inevitable, given the recent experiments with banning individual developers or entire projects.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is certainly a possibility but I would say &quot;inevitable&quot; is a bit strong. The best case scenario is GitHub realized that taking down Tornado Cash was an error, reversed that decision and won't pursue similar actions in future for other privacy projects, let alone full node implementations. The worst case scenario is GitHub takes down Bitcoin Core, all other Bitcoin open source projects and restricts the accounts of maintainers and contributors to these projects. Clearly if the worst case scenario happens a plan will have to drafted and executed but I suspect most maintainers and contributors have their fingers crossed that it won't get much worse than the best case scenario. I don't know of any long term contributors that have been impacted by the Iran, Crimea, Cuba, North Korea etc restrictions.</p>
<p>So thus far the GitHub actions haven't caused enough pain on the project to motivate a serious effort to plan for a move away from GitHub. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, merely that that's the reality. It would be a headache to execute (choosing the replacement, updating docs, potentially worsening the new contributor experience) and many contributors like the convenience, user interface and funding initiatives on GitHub. If the pain increases and we start to move closer to the worst case scenario and away from the best case scenario I am sure we will see more activity and interest in this area.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the event of GitHub banning Core maintainers or Core itself, where do developers gather to communicate and collaborate for reliable development and maintenance of Bitcoin?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It would most likely be discussed on Libera IRC (#bitcoin-core-dev channel), the <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin dev mailing list</a> and <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-core-dev/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin Core dev mailing list</a>. <a href="https://bitcoinops.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin Optech</a> and <a href="https://bitcoincore.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bitcoincore.org</a> would also be possible sources of information.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: This is just my personal view, no one can speak for the Bitcoin Core project (and certainly not me) but I hope this is somewhat helpful.</p>
<p>This topic was also discussed at the recent Core dev meeting (Bryan Bishop <a href="https://btctranscripts.com/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2022-10-11-github/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">transcript</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-11T17:25:32.617Z
I appreciate your view and acknowledge your disclaimers. I suppose I'm surprised there isn't more urgency in the ecosystem to preempt these possibilities. 

"Clearly if the worst case scenario happens a plan will have to drafted and executed"
E.g. wouldn't it be a worse headache - with higher chance of failure - to draft a plan *after* the worst case has already happened?

It seems like a mismatch to aspire for extraordinary development in financial freedoms while crossing fingers that those entrenched in the existing system will not take extraordinary measures to fight back.
jarctu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-11T18:30:30.003Z
Think through what happens though. The Core GitHub repo is taken down which throws a wrench into the opening of PRs, review of PRs, merging of PRs. Still possible to do these things via maintainers but more friction, will take longer to get comparable amounts of review etc. Possibly the release schedule is pushed back until the project is back up and running elsewhere. Users can still run old versions of Core. The central repo can get taken down for weeks or possibly even months and this doesn't disrupt mining or the validation of the network nodes.
Michael Folkson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-11T18:35:33.337Z
The only really concerning scenario would be if a consensus bug was discovered, an emergency fix was required and GitHub took down the repo at the same time making it harder to distribute the release. Otherwise it is just a pain and disrupts the project for a few weeks.
Michael Folkson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-13T04:42:01.007Z
That's a great point about the existing versions of Core being unaffected. I don't think I was considering that sufficiently in my premise. In the same spirit as your hypothetical bug+takedown, I do think malicious actors could leverage the delay and chaos following a GH ban to launch attacks of varying severity. Such as media disinfo campaigns, impersonating known devs on other platforms, promoting falsified repos, and so on. This could all be countered, as well, though, and I might be leaving the scope of this premise and platform if I try for every imaginable threat scenario. Cheers.
jarctu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-11T14:11:27.383Z
2022-10-19T12:38:25.827Z
2022-10-19T12:38:25.827Z
Michael Folkson
<p>The question of GitHub alternatives has been raised and <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99634/what-are-some-of-the-github-alternatives-that-you-consider-for-bitcoin-core-and">closed</a>. Alternative, backup repos exist.</p>
<p>That said, I have not seen any contingencies for planning the social move to those repos and organizing developer efforts for maintaining Core in the face of a GitHub ban.</p>
<p>It seems inevitable, given the recent experiments with banning <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1578533682800865280" rel="nofollow noreferrer">individual developers</a> or <a href="https://cryptobriefing.com/tornado-cashs-code-is-back-on-github/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">entire projects</a>.</p>
<p>Existing guidelines for contributing to Core seem to exclusively revolve around GitHub.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Contributing to Bitcoin Core</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bitcointechtalk.com/a-gentle-introduction-to-bitcoin-core-development-fdc95eaee6b8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Gentle Introduction to Bitcoin Core Development</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bitcoincore.reviews/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin Core PR Review Club</a></li>
</ul>
<p>In the event of GitHub banning Core maintainers or Core itself, where do developers gather to communicate and collaborate for reliable development and maintenance of Bitcoin?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-19T14:59:30.697Z
[laanwj already wrote about GitHub being a risk, almost two years ago, if not any earlier](https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html#plans)
Mercedes
<bitcoin-core><source-code><risk-mitigation><censorship-resistance>
What is the backup plan for the social organization surrounding Core development?
jarctu
# What is the backup plan for the social organization surrounding Core development?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-11)

The question of GitHub alternatives has been raised and [closed](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99634/what-are-some-of-the-github-alternatives-that-you-consider-for-bitcoin-core-and). Alternative, backup repos exist.

That said, I have not seen any contingencies for planning the social move to those repos and organizing developer efforts for maintaining Core in the face of a GitHub ban.

It seems inevitable, given the recent experiments with banning [individual developers](https://twitter.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1578533682800865280) or [entire projects](https://cryptobriefing.com/tornado-cashs-code-is-back-on-github/).

Existing guidelines for contributing to Core seem to exclusively revolve around GitHub.

* [Contributing to Bitcoin Core](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [A Gentle Introduction to Bitcoin Core Development](https://bitcointechtalk.com/a-gentle-introduction-to-bitcoin-core-development-fdc95eaee6b8)
* [Bitcoin Core PR Review Club](https://bitcoincore.reviews/)

In the event of GitHub banning Core maintainers or Core itself, where do developers gather to communicate and collaborate for reliable development and maintenance of Bitcoin?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, source-code, risk-mitigation, censorship-resistance

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [laanwj already wrote about GitHub being a risk, almost two years ago, if not any earlier](https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html#plans)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-10-11. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

To date GitHub has [restricted](https://github.com/1995parham/github-do-not-ban-us) developer accounts from Iran, Crimea, Cuba, North Korea and has taken down certain projects (e.g. an Ethereum open source privacy project [Tornado Cash](https://github.com/tornadocash) though Tornado Cash is now back up). GitHub is owned by a US corporation (Microsoft) and is clearly at a minimum bound by US law and US sanctions. There seems to be evidence that it is willing to take actions beyond what it is required by US law and US sanctions though as you suggest.

> I have not seen any contingencies for planning the social move to those repos and organizing developer efforts for maintaining Core in the face of a GitHub ban.

No such plans have been made public as far as I'm aware. Recall that no maintainer or no contributor can bind the project to a particular future contingency plan even if they drafted such a plan.

> It seems inevitable, given the recent experiments with banning individual developers or entire projects.

It is certainly a possibility but I would say "inevitable" is a bit strong. The best case scenario is GitHub realized that taking down Tornado Cash was an error, reversed that decision and won't pursue similar actions in future for other privacy projects, let alone full node implementations. The worst case scenario is GitHub takes down Bitcoin Core, all other Bitcoin open source projects and restricts the accounts of maintainers and contributors to these projects. Clearly if the worst case scenario happens a plan will have to drafted and executed but I suspect most maintainers and contributors have their fingers crossed that it won't get much worse than the best case scenario. I don't know of any long term contributors that have been impacted by the Iran, Crimea, Cuba, North Korea etc restrictions.

So thus far the GitHub actions haven't caused enough pain on the project to motivate a serious effort to plan for a move away from GitHub. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, merely that that's the reality. It would be a headache to execute (choosing the replacement, updating docs, potentially worsening the new contributor experience) and many contributors like the convenience, user interface and funding initiatives on GitHub. If the pain increases and we start to move closer to the worst case scenario and away from the best case scenario I am sure we will see more activity and interest in this area.

> In the event of GitHub banning Core maintainers or Core itself, where do developers gather to communicate and collaborate for reliable development and maintenance of Bitcoin?

It would most likely be discussed on Libera IRC (#bitcoin-core-dev channel), the [Bitcoin dev mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/) and [Bitcoin Core dev mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-core-dev/). [Bitcoin Optech](https://bitcoinops.org/) and [bitcoincore.org](https://bitcoincore.org/) would also be possible sources of information.

Disclaimer: This is just my personal view, no one can speak for the Bitcoin Core project (and certainly not me) but I hope this is somewhat helpful.

This topic was also discussed at the recent Core dev meeting (Bryan Bishop [transcript](https://btctranscripts.com/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2022-10-11-github/)).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I appreciate your view and acknowledge your disclaimers. I suppose I'm surprised there isn't more urgency in the ecosystem to preempt these possibilities.   "Clearly if the worst case scenario happens a plan will have to drafted and executed" E.g. wouldn't it be a worse headache - with higher chance of failure - to draft a plan *after* the worst case has already happened?  It seems like a mismatch to aspire for extraordinary development in financial freedoms while crossing fingers that those entrenched in the existing system will not take extraordinary measures to fight back.  
> **username_2**: Think through what happens though. The Core GitHub repo is taken down which throws a wrench into the opening of PRs, review of PRs, merging of PRs. Still possible to do these things via maintainers but more friction, will take longer to get comparable amounts of review etc. Possibly the release schedule is pushed back until the project is back up and running elsewhere. Users can still run old versions of Core. The central repo can get taken down for weeks or possibly even months and this doesn't disrupt mining or the validation of the network nodes.  
> **username_2**: The only really concerning scenario would be if a consensus bug was discovered, an emergency fix was required and GitHub took down the repo at the same time making it harder to distribute the release. Otherwise it is just a pain and disrupts the project for a few weeks.  
> **username_0**: That's a great point about the existing versions of Core being unaffected. I don't think I was considering that sufficiently in my premise. In the same spirit as your hypothetical bug+takedown, I do think malicious actors could leverage the delay and chaos following a GH ban to launch attacks of varying severity. Such as media disinfo campaigns, impersonating known devs on other platforms, promoting falsified repos, and so on. This could all be countered, as well, though, and I might be leaving the scope of this premise and platform if I try for every imaginable threat scenario. Cheers.  

---

