
Ask HN: Why isnt there a public spec for Bitcoin core? - nnn1234
Easy rebuttals: 
+There is no public spec for linux -https:&#x2F;&#x2F;refspecs.linuxfoundation.org&#x2F;lsb.shtml
+If you want one go build one
Better reason - there isnt demand for this
I would like to understand what other reasons there could be
======
ypcx
I'm thinking what would be the purpose or added value of a separate "public
spec" document (which would require a significant maintenance effort) when you
already have [1] a healthy Github (or Gitlab) project governance going on, [2]
Bitcoin feature proposal process.

    
    
      [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects
      [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
    

When you upgrade your Bitcoin node software, the act of the upgrading is you
casting your Yes vote for the changes introduced in that version. The BIPs
etc. can help you understand these, but if you want to be 100% diligent, the
only fully authoritative source is the state of (the code sources in) the git
repo as referenced by the commit hash in the Bitcoin software you are
upgrading to.

~~~
nnn1234
I agree with your comment. What I think is a public spec will help develop
client diversity and keep the commits aligned with an explicit spec.

------
twox2
Not sure if it's still the case but if I recall correctly, the majority of the
bitcoin maintainers are employed by one company... so not sure there's an
incentive for them.

~~~
nnn1234
Its probably more than one company. but even then, lets say that it was one
company, shouldnt decentralized,open protocols have open specs to help create
more clients?

~~~
twox2
Yes of course they should, but if core development is isolated to one or two
companies, then they're not incentivized to produce these open specs so that
they can maintain control, because they are also building businesses around
these protocols. Another question: Is a protocol truly decentralized if its
development is centralized?

------
coralreef
What is a public spec?

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation)

~~~
nnn1234
"In particular, while this page is quite complete in describing the network
protocol, it does not attempt to list all of the rules for block or
transaction validity." Cmon man..

------
the_hoser
Writing documentation is boring, and requires the kind of rigor and focus that
I haven't found to be common in the Bitcoin community.

------
rotterdamdev
Ponzi schemes generally don't have open specs. Defeats the purpose.

~~~
tuesdayrain
Bitcoin does not fall under the definition of a ponzi scheme. And in general,
there's no reason why a ponzi scheme couldn't have an open spec. If the
incentive structure sounds appealing then people will participate even when
they understand something is a ponzi.

