<p>It is propagated server-to-server and, with luck, eventually gets to a bunch of miners who will include it in a block. There is no central authority -- individual servers are free to propagate transactions using whatever rules they wish.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-03T12:23:41.450Z
2017-04-03T12:23:41.450Z
David Schwartz
<p>Bitcoin is open-source and relies on decentralization to achieve trustless consensus for transactions.  </p>

<p><strong>Ultimately, however, maintaining the Bitcoin Core code and deciding the direction of development has in practice been influenced primarily by a small (but growing) group of individuals.</strong>  Scroll to the bottom of this page - <a href="https://bitcoin.org/en/development" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://bitcoin.org/en/development</a> - for a list of contributors.  Blockstream is also an authority on how Bitcoin development progresses, and many from their team - <a href="https://blockstream.com/team/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blockstream.com/team/</a> - are among that list of contributors.  The current 'Core vs. Unlimited' debate illustrates how, if other Bitcoin participants believe Core development is not addressing concerns adequately and/or is under control of bad actors* they can present alternative code, which miners may freely choose instead.  With enough of the network's hashrate this would cause a 'fork'.  </p>

<p><strong>Mining power can be centralized too, and is to some extent today</strong>, which leaves the network vulnerable to bad actors in what is commonly called a 51% attack (for close calls of the past and a larger discussion: <a href="http://www.coindesk.com/51-attacks-real-threat-bitcoin/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.coindesk.com/51-attacks-real-threat-bitcoin/</a>).</p>

<p><strong>These vulnerabilities are well-known and have been discussed for years without a perfect solution.  With appropriate checks, balances, and participation from the community we mitigate the risks of development or mining truly becoming managed by a central authority; but with economic incentives present for certain actions, Bitcoin may always fall somewhere between decentralized and centralized.  There <em>is</em> strong consensus in the community that this is still better than our traditional alternatives.</strong></p>

<p>*not to imply either as fact in that debate; just for a relevant framework</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-27T22:26:29.450Z
When you say "direction of development has in practice been influenced primarily by a small (but growing) group of individuals", do you mean small in comparison to the number of users?  Why is that a valid argument towards Bitcoin being more centralised?
MattCochrane
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T03:33:51.520Z
2017-04-06T03:42:55.317Z
2017-04-06T03:42:55.317Z
Petecoin
<p>Is the Bitcoin Core software managed by a central authority? It is in the context, that once a transaction is broadcast by a user, then is it centrally published at the application level (i.e Bitcoin Core) or it is propagated physically to every other user through the Bitcoin network?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-03T12:51:31.777Z
I didn't know what "virtual blockchain network" is supposed to be, so I replaced it with "Bitcoin network" which I think is what you meant.
Murch
<bitcoin-core><decentralization><transaction-propagation>
Is the Bitcoin Core software managed by a central authority?
Imran Makhdoom
# Is the Bitcoin Core software managed by a central authority?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-03)

Is the Bitcoin Core software managed by a central authority? It is in the context, that once a transaction is broadcast by a user, then is it centrally published at the application level (i.e Bitcoin Core) or it is propagated physically to every other user through the Bitcoin network?

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, decentralization, transaction-propagation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I didn't know what "virtual blockchain network" is supposed to be, so I replaced it with "Bitcoin network" which I think is what you meant.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-04-03. Score: 4

It is propagated server-to-server and, with luck, eventually gets to a bunch of miners who will include it in a block. There is no central authority -- individual servers are free to propagate transactions using whatever rules they wish.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-06. Score: 0

Bitcoin is open-source and relies on decentralization to achieve trustless consensus for transactions.

**Ultimately, however, maintaining the Bitcoin Core code and deciding the direction of development has in practice been influenced primarily by a small (but growing) group of individuals.** Scroll to the bottom of this page - <https://bitcoin.org/en/development> - for a list of contributors. Blockstream is also an authority on how Bitcoin development progresses, and many from their team - <https://blockstream.com/team/> - are among that list of contributors. The current 'Core vs. Unlimited' debate illustrates how, if other Bitcoin participants believe Core development is not addressing concerns adequately and/or is under control of bad actors\* they can present alternative code, which miners may freely choose instead. With enough of the network's hashrate this would cause a 'fork'.

**Mining power can be centralized too, and is to some extent today**, which leaves the network vulnerable to bad actors in what is commonly called a 51% attack (for close calls of the past and a larger discussion: <http://www.coindesk.com/51-attacks-real-threat-bitcoin/>).

**These vulnerabilities are well-known and have been discussed for years without a perfect solution. With appropriate checks, balances, and participation from the community we mitigate the risks of development or mining truly becoming managed by a central authority; but with economic incentives present for certain actions, Bitcoin may always fall somewhere between decentralized and centralized. There *is* strong consensus in the community that this is still better than our traditional alternatives.**

\*not to imply either as fact in that debate; just for a relevant framework

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: When you say "direction of development has in practice been influenced primarily by a small (but growing) group of individuals", do you mean small in comparison to the number of users?  Why is that a valid argument towards Bitcoin being more centralised?  

---

