to be honest yes i curious maybe there's lead team but approval of new proposal still in public hand

when it takes years for pooya to see his own contradictions in his own statements.. you got to wonder why it takes soo long

..
yes there are many 'projects' of light/spv/private wallets. but since ~2015-17 there has only been ONE repository centralising and leading the protocol decisions

electrum cant overrule 'reference implementation' decisions. and thats how 'reference implementation' like it

one day he might even read his contradictions and see and learn the difference between a contribution and a request of contribution. especially when you see the same people who get to acknowledge requests. are also the moderators of the other communication area's of development of the 'reference implementation'

note: calling 'reference implementation' by its brand name and given names to lead developers and their other controls. usually gets posts deleted or harrassed by those peoples fanbase.

even though i am a bitcoiner. the 'reference implementation' group dont like to be talked about negatively

Bitcoin is an open source software and as such any body can contribute to the system. If you are a developer you too can contribute to Bitcoin existence but having a list of bitcoin developers is something you might never get because it's rather better been anonymous to avoid altering it's decentralized nature.

have you actually tried.
have you seen all the hurdles involved and WHO set up the hurdles.
they are not very open at all.(imagine a little boys club)


yes you can make your own wallet.
but ever try to contribute to actually add a feature into the protocol. . if/when you do. you will spot the hurdles

They have a Github, also if you are already there, try to donate to them because I think that this is their full time job, core development for bitcoin. The only one that I know that's in this forum that is part of the team is @achow101.

Anyone can submit PRs to the Bitcoin Core github repo and anyone can discuss on the issues raised and the changes to the code. There are users with commit access to be able to merge commits into the repository and include it in the next RC, until it gets to the official release eventually. IIRC, there are various maintainers for the various components of Bitcoin Core and only a single lead maintainer for the entire repo.

Yes, to that extent the maintenance and security of the Bitcoin blockchain network is solely voluntary, and because of this nature the people who carry out all the work are independent. Yes, there might be social online communities but its users are using aliases.

It is a great project which demonstrates that people are willing to chip in with their knowledge and skills in their spare time. This is what arguably makes Bitcoin decentralized.

Personally, I don't like the phrase "official release".  It gives a sense that this is a centralized system where an authority declares what is "official" and everything else is "unofficial". In reality, anyone can clone the source code. They can then become the "lead developer" of their copy of the source. So long as their code remains 100% compatible with the current reference implementation regarding the consensus rules, they can add any other features they like.  If they can convince the vast majority of users to trust their code more than the current "Bitcoin Core" (or to trust it just as much and prefer it's other features), then they BECOME the new reference implementation.

Essentially, if they convince the vast majority of users to use their code, then it can be announced that Bitcoin is officially changed. It is official that people decided to move differently than the developers proposed; it is official the signal for Taproot from the miners.

Essentially, “official release” is a statement agreed from people and since they all manage with their way how Bitcoin will work, there isn't such thing as “unofficial release”.

I don't think so, I think official is something that a lot of people just use incorrectly. What you are describing is what people have consensus agreed is the more appropriate path to take, but I don't think that makes it any more official than other suggestions.

Personally, I think official can only be used when there's a clear entity that controls it. For example, this forum theymos controls, therefore the rules that are posted by theymos can be described as unofficially. The Bitcoin code base isn't controlled by anyone, so nothing can truly be official. Though, there's obvious routes that might be better for the users, it doesn't necessarily mean its official.

This is common in open source development. The code proposals are peer reviewed, to make sure they actually contribute to the code. While you could argue that is centralisation, surely there has to be a point where we draw the line to prevent just any code being injected in the main development line. I think people, and in particular users on this forum, and Bitcoin supports treat centralisation as a bad thing, when its not necessarily bad for everything. There's definitely scenarios where centralisation makes sense, then other times like a currency it doesn't.