Should read (2023).

Also, those "mysterious coders" mean nothing if the users don't run their code.

It was the users who used a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in 2017 to push through the SegWit update. [1]

The bitcoin network is open and decentralized, and there are several clients and several versions of those clients. [2][3]

[1] see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-independence-day...

[2] See the right bottom under "top node versions": https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/

[3] the most popular alternative client is Knots. See also: https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/bitcoinknots/

> Also, those "mysterious coders" mean nothing if the users don't run their code.

Over 98% of nodes run Bitcoin Core right now [0]

> It was the users who used a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in 2017 to push through the SegWit update.

SegWit was a Miner Activated Soft Fork (MASF) [1]

[0]: https://coin.dance/nodes/share/gif [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit

I’ve always thought it was strange that btc community encourages only running core, rather than having several implementations to make consensus more robust

Wouldn't having a handful of alternate implementations running suffice in making "consensus more robust"? If there's some bug in core, all it takes is one alternate implementation to catch it.

At a more practical level, there's a strong incentive to go along with whatever bugs are present in core, either as a miner or a user (ie. someone making transactions). If there's a consensus disagreement and you're in the minority, then it's basically becomes a hardfork and your side would have a fraction of the hashrate. This isn't too bad if you're just transacting, but if you're a miner this is catastrophic because all your blocks are wasted, because your side of the fork has no chance of being the longest chain, due it it having minority of the hash power.

Satoshi Nakamoto said this about other implementations:

"I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." [0]

I can see the dangers, but multiple implementations looks healthy to me.

[0]: https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/forum/bitcoin-forum/...

It's not that strange. People tend to use what is popular.

There are several implementations of core across various languages, not including custom forks of core.

BTC trolls like to lie and say the non-mining nodes helped with their segwit fork.

Exactly, and they also think they are helping to protect the network, but alas:

https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-a...

> It was the users who used a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in 2017...

Wow! What a wrong and truly dumb perspective to have. Only mining nodes do anything, it's in the white paper. Amazing how so many years later people are still spewing these stupid lies!

I hear Jia Tan is available if an experienced maintainer is needed.

“The public’s perception of this depends on a handful of mysterious writers”

There, just as dumb and uninformed.

Know Your Customer coming to Github commits "soon" ?