If Core is gone, can Bitcoin survive?

Written by: Liu Jiao Lian

Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song posed a thought-provoking question: Can Bitcoin survive without Core (note: referring to the Bitcoin Core client software, considered the "orthodox" inheritor of Satoshi Nakamoto's original codebase)? Another well-known Bitcoin developer, Luke Dashjr, responded: As it stands, the likelihood of Bitcoin continuing to survive without Core is significantly higher than in a scenario that relies on Core.

As we all know, since its inception in 2009, Bitcoin's underlying protocol and operating mechanism have always revolved around "decentralization." As its original reference implementation, Bitcoin Core is responsible for maintaining protocol rules, fixing vulnerabilities, upgrading the network, and other functions. However, must Bitcoin's existence rely on Core?

From the technical architecture of Bitcoin, the protocol takes precedence over the implementation. The core of Bitcoin is not a specific software, but the protocol defined by mathematical rules and cryptographic algorithms.

Bitcoin Core, as the first implementation of the protocol, provides a standardized node program, but its code is not irreplaceable.

In theory, any client that complies with Bitcoin's consensus rules can connect to the network, as long as the new implementation is compatible with the existing network's transaction validation rules and block generation logic, the Bitcoin network can continue to operate.

However, according to Luke Dashjr's statistics, the Bitcoin Core client software still holds an absolute dominant position, with a market share of over 97%.

As for the reason, the teaching chain believes that it may be because the consensus of the so-called majority needs a carrier. And choosing the most "orthodox" codebase as the carrier of this consensus seems to be the simplest.

Similar to the choice of the longest chain by miners, the choice of Core software also seems to be a "Schelling Point" in game theory.

This is why, after 16 years since the birth of Bitcoin, there are many other client software options outside of Core, yet they have never been able to achieve a significant market share.

The Bitcoin Knots, which ranks second in the above chart, is actually a variant of Core, a modified version of Core produced by Luke Dashjr.

During the history of Bitcoin development, the most significant and intense community divide occurred during the 2017-2018 block size debate, when large block proponents attempted to seize the legitimate status of Core, even utilizing nearly Core's computing power for a time, but ultimately they were defeated. This undoubtedly greatly strengthened Core's unshakable leadership position.

Without Core and the insistence on principles by the then Chief Maintainer Wladimir van der Laan (who served as Chief Maintainer from 2014 to 2022) and his relentless coordination, it's hard to imagine how much the community conflicts would have escalated, and whether there would have been a result where mining groups could reverse control of the development team and form a "military government."

The difference between Core and miner groups is that miner groups control the computing power. Once they obtain the code modification rights (legislative power), they can change the rules as they wish; whereas Core can only hope for the community to voluntarily accept the new code rules to change the rules by modifying the code. Otherwise, if no one uses the code written, and the decree cannot be published on GitHub, it is just a piece of waste paper.

Currently, Bitcoin's protocol updates depend on the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process, where any developer can submit a proposal, but it must go through coordination of various interests from miners, nodes, exchanges, etc., to take effect. The Bitcoin Core codebase is publicly available on GitHub, allowing developers worldwide to review, modify, or suggest alternatives.

The evolution mechanism of the protocol is essentially a social experiment. If the interests of the miner community are not taken into account, a successful upgrade is impossible. And if the interests of the broader group of token holders are not considered, the situation will be even worse; users will vote with their feet, selling off BTC and completely abandoning it, leading to a final outcome of zero.

Bitcoin that deviates from Core may face two types of risks. The first is protocol fragmentation. If multiple clients have differing interpretations of the rules (such as block size, script opcodes), it may lead to network splits. The fork wave in 2017 has shown such risks, but history indicates that the market typically opts for the chain with the strongest network effects and stability as the "main chain." The second is the dispersion of development resources. Core has accumulated over a decade of technical debt and optimization experience, and new implementations need to rebuild code robustness at the same level, which places higher demands on community collaboration efficiency.

However, as long as the core rules such as the proof-of-work mechanism, the 21 million cap, and the UTXO model remain unchanged, any compatibility implementation can inherit its value storage attributes.

In extreme cases where Core disappears, miners still have the motivation to switch to other clients to maintain the value of their assets, and exchanges and wallet service providers will also adapt to the new protocol to ensure business continuity.

The vitality of Bitcoin is rooted in the social consensus and decentralized architecture of its protocol layer, rather than in a specific development team or software implementation. The role of Core is similar to that of a "chief maintainer," but it is not irreplaceable.

At this stage, the existence of Core serves as a "ghostwriter" for the global consensus of the Shelley point, essentially writing the rules of Bitcoin on behalf of all coin holders. This is the most natural choice that human society has reached in its evolution to date.

As for the "decentralization" of Core itself, which has split into numerous client software and code maintenance teams, no longer relying on traditional collaboration methods for coordination, this is indeed another milestone in the era when humanity is still accustomed to management methods such as national governance and corporate governance, exploring, pioneering, and innovating new ways of decentralized governance and self-organized collaboration.

Perhaps we should remain optimistic about this.

Historical crises have proven that when code defects threaten the system, the community can quickly collaborate to fix them; when there are divergences in development direction, the market chooses the main chain through hash power voting. This governance model based on rules and dynamic balance may allow Bitcoin to continue its network effect even if it separates from Core, relying on the open-source ecosystem and global participants.

Perhaps the real bottom line for survival lies in whether the majority of participants still believe in mathematical rules rather than human authority, and whether they are willing to pay the cost and price for maintaining that belief.