GitHub Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Prudent Bird (@prudentbird) reported 4 minutes ago

  is *** or github the problem?

• 
  Corentin Kérisit (@corentinanjuna) reported 5 minutes ago

  @HotAisle I can't use my laptop to run tests on dozens of heterogenous accelerators anyway. And your premise was "Github Action Outage" !! Also, cache hit is so high for our non GPU stuff that running on my ****** laptop has almost no draw back. I'll accept a bigger macbook donation tho <3

• 
  Rehan Ali Shah (@RehanAS21) reported 8 minutes ago

  @teej_dv Was Github action down for only free users or for paying users also?

• 
  Amit Spitzer (@amitspofficial) reported 9 minutes ago

  One GitHub issue, filed with zero privileges, compromised Anthropic's, Google's, and OpenAI's own coding agents, on their own repos, running their own default configs. One of the three flaws reached two million installs downstream.

• 
  JH Trader (@JoshExile82) reported 12 minutes ago

  @witcheer Haven’t been able to update the desktop Hermes . My WSL Hermes agent found the problem. I submitted it to GitHub and on discord with logs. It was fine the other day but when to update and problems. :-) I have no doubt it will be fixed asap

• 
  Miguel Sanchez (@MSanchezWorld) reported 12 minutes ago

  @sama I'm sure you guys have thought of this but just in case why not make it so you can only do security checks if the company validates its ownership of the domain, server, and GitHub? This way we can all start hardening our software for the impending hack apocalypse. I have many more good ideas like this if you want to hire me. LOL

• 
  WhodeySPOH (@WhodeyAI) reported 13 minutes ago

  C2 runs on Ethereum via 'EtherHiding' — no server to seize. Researchers tied 453 public GitHub repos to its exfiltration dead-drops, and confirmed execution in 10 separate environments.

• 
  Naourass Derouichi (@NaourassD) reported 17 minutes ago

  @thdxr @thdxr please 1) fix select-to-copy on web terminals like github codespaces 2) ctrl+p and ctrl+t and the likes don't work either on web terminals 3) the numpad enter button having a different behavior than the main one is annoying.

• 
  Fabio Paniconi (@paniconi_fabio) reported 18 minutes ago

  @ThetAungDev @theo How do you replace GitHub Actions when is down?

• 
  Yash Solanki (@YashSolanki_) reported 18 minutes ago

  @mehulmpt Only son of anton can fix GitHub uptime

• 
  Chloe Dubois (@ChloeDubois4782) reported 19 minutes ago

  @isha_singh06 github streak every time, a green square means something actually got shipped. leetcode streak can just be three easy problems solved half asleep

• 
  Justin Bons (@Justin_Bons) reported 20 minutes ago

  Ethereum's latest proposal (EIP-8363) again exposes its leadership as totally out of touch ETH's economic model is perfect! The problem is: No demand due to its failure to scale... Squeezing supply for any life left is not the answer They are sacrificing security for greed! 🧵 It shows a flawed set of priorities: Value & scarcity in crypto must ultimately be derived from fees! That is why scalability is tantamount for long-term security & decentralization. Something ETH is significantly behind on & will continue to be behind on according to its own monster of a 5-year roadmap... That is why this proposal comes across as so incredibly tone deaf: The fact that top ETH researchers spent years developing an idea that goes completely against ETH's self-stated ethos & popular demand Faustian Bargain Make no mistake, this proposal, if passed, will make ETH less secure & less decentralized! By lowering the maximum stake, they are proposing to lower the maximum security budget! Lowering emissions will also lead to fewer stakers/validators! Less paid out = less security & decentralization This proposal will lead to fewer validators overall (less decentralized) & a lower security budget (economic security); there is no other way to cut it All to gain a few percentage points on the inflation curve, it tragically misses the big picture of what blockchains can become with high demand As the fees a blockchain can generate when they scale far eclipse whatever minor difference such a small-minded economic proposal might make The Perfect Model ETH's economic design is perfect as is; I have been on record about this since EIP-1559. SOL has more or less adopted the same model. At this stage, anyone who does not adopt this model has a bad economic design in my book I am, of ofcourse, talking about "tail inflation + fee burn". More secure & more scarce under all circumstances. This new proposal still follows that core structure but unnecessarily limits the maximums as we discussed earlier If this latest ETH proposal (EIP-8363) were passed, it would likely lead to SOL taking the lead in being the most economically secure blockchain, a title ETH currently holds... Despite this being very funny to me & serving as validation of my long-term thesis. It is obviously not the correct course of action for ETH. It should absolutely attempt to hold on to one of the few advantages it still possesses after losing its lead in usage to chains like SOL The way it does this is not by making minor tweaks to a pretty much perfect model. It instead must achieve this by scaling the L1 so that it can directly compete on demand/fees with other L1's. Something these same researchers have technically opposed, as ETH's current roadmap does not significantly increase speed at all on purpose! A tail inflation of 0.8% combined with a 50% fee burn is an excellent design for an L1 & it has always been that way. Are there slight ways it can be improved in minor ways? Certainly. However, that should not at all be the priority now, if ever The real problem is ETH's utter inability to compete with other L1's on-demand & that is due to its centralized ivory-tower leadership: Who Decides As this drama runs its course, pay attention. It will again expose that decision-making in ETH is totally centralized in the client development teams & or whoever controls them Extreme centralized control in what is supposed to be a decentralized network? Yes! Paradoxically, though it may seem at first, this is one of the most common perversions in crypto Even today, thought leaders like Vitalik speak against the evils of on-chain governance. While they hypocritically wield effective dictatorial decision-making power over the protocol Make no mistake, formalized stakeholder governance is the only way to decentralize the decision-making effectively in a way that still honors crypto & cypherpunk principles. To do justice to this incredibly powerful technology we have inherited without handing it right back to the powers that be The Ethereum Foundation The more the Ethereum Foundation tries not to be in charge, the more they effectively are in charge. Power cannot exist in a vacuum. So, unless another centralized power takes control, it will always flow back to that cabal to solve the coordination problem That is the key: the coordination problem, as we can either solve it in the old way (centralized/off-chain) or in the new way (decentralized/on-chain). That is the biggest problem that blockchain solved to begin with, after all Here is a scary thought: With such a highly centralized form of governance, something I like to call a "GitHub Dictatorship," even a little controversy can be used as a justification to implement nothing forever. So, I think that is what we should expect over the coming years: A lot of nothing Conclusion This economic proposal is only the latest blunder in a long list of failures in what is becoming a tragic history The gumption to trade off security in favor of price speculation at a time like this is insulting As this proposal makes ETH less decentralized & secure! To spend any energy on that instead of moving the needle on upgrading ETH to compete on demand is mindboggling The disconnect between the stakeholders having no effective say in this decision (except for forking off). Should also at least act as an additional wake-up call for any remaining supporters There are great ETH researchers supporting this proposal. Some whose previous work I admire & respect. Despite that, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room ETH's centralized leadership is a mess after the extremists consolidated control of the Ethereum Foundation & told the world to rely on others This is what we get from some of ETH's greatest researchers/others: A terrible proposal which weakens the qualities they claim to hold most dear; security & decentralization. The result; division & disruption We can love Ethereum's original spirit without supporting what it tragically has become today That is how we can move on from BTC & now ETH too, while carrying their original spirit with us. Crypto is still evolving & we have to keep evolving with it too! 🔥

• 
  Justin Bons (@Justin_Bons) reported 24 minutes ago

  Ethereum's latest proposal (EIP-8363) sacrifices security & decentralization for greed! Exposing ETH's leadership as out of touch. ETH's economic model is perfect! The problem is: No demand due to its failure to scale... Squeezing supply for any life left is not the answer: 🧵 It shows a flawed set of priorities: Value & scarcity in crypto must ultimately be derived from fees! That is why scalability is tantamount for long-term security & decentralization. Something ETH is significantly behind on & will continue to be behind on according to its own monster of a 5-year roadmap... That is why this proposal comes across as so incredibly tone deaf: The fact that top ETH researchers spent years developing an idea that goes completely against ETH's self-stated ethos & popular demand. Faustian Bargain Make no mistake, this proposal, if passed, will make ETH less secure & less decentralized! By lowering the maximum stake, they are proposing to lower the maximum security budget! Lowering emissions will also lead to fewer stakers/validators! Less paid out = less security & decentralization. This proposal will lead to fewer validators overall (less decentralized) & a lower security budget (economic security); there is no other way to cut it. All to gain a few percentage points on the inflation curve, it tragically misses the big picture of what blockchains can become with high demand. As the fees a blockchain can generate when they scale far eclipse whatever minor difference such a small-minded economic proposal might make. The Perfect Model ETH's economic design is perfect as is; I have been on record about this since EIP-1559. SOL has more or less adopted the same model. At this stage, anyone who does not adopt this model has a bad economic design in my book I am, of ofcourse, talking about "tail inflation + fee burn". More secure & more scarce under all circumstances. This new proposal still follows that core structure but unnecessarily limits the maximums as we discussed earlier If this latest ETH proposal (EIP-8363) were passed, it would likely lead to SOL taking the lead in being the most economically secure blockchain, a title ETH currently holds... Despite this being very funny to me & serving as validation of my long-term thesis. It is obviously not the correct course of action for ETH. It should absolutely attempt to hold on to one of the few advantages it still possesses after losing its lead in usage to chains like SOL The way it does this is not by making minor tweaks to a pretty much perfect model. Instead, it must achieve this by scaling the L1 so that it can directly compete on demand/fees with other L1's. Something these same researchers have technically opposed, as ETH's current roadmap does not significantly increase speed at all on purpose! A tail inflation of 0.8% combined with a 50% fee burn is an excellent design for an L1 & it has always been that way. Are there slight ways it can be improved in minor ways? Certainly. However, that should not at all be the priority now, if ever The real problem is ETH's utter inability to compete with other L1's on-demand & that is due to its centralized ivory-tower leadership: Who Decides As this drama runs its course, pay attention. It will again expose that decision-making in ETH is totally centralized in the client development teams & or whoever controls them Extreme centralized control in what is supposed to be a decentralized network? Yes! Paradoxically, though it may seem at first, this is one of the most common perversions in crypto Even today, thought leaders like Vitalik speak against the evils of on-chain governance. While they hypocritically wield effective dictatorial decision-making power over the protocol Make no mistake, formalized stakeholder governance is the only way to decentralize the decision-making effectively in a way that still honors crypto & cypherpunk principles. To do justice to this incredibly powerful technology we have inherited without handing it right back to the powers that be Ethereum Foundation & Friends The more the Ethereum Foundation tries not to be in charge, the more they effectively are in charge. Power cannot exist in a vacuum. So, unless another centralized power takes control, it will always flow back to that cabal to solve the coordination problem That is the key: the coordination problem, as we can either solve it in the old way (centralized/off-chain) or in the new way (decentralized/on-chain). That is the biggest problem that blockchain solved to begin with, after all Here is a scary thought: With such a highly centralized form of governance, something I like to call a "GitHub Dictatorship," even a little controversy can be used as a justification to implement nothing forever. So, I think that is what we should expect over the coming years: A lot of nothing Conclusion This economic proposal is only the latest blunder in a long list of failures in what is becoming a tragic history The gumption to trade off security in favor of price speculation at a time like this is insulting As this proposal makes ETH less decentralized & secure! To spend any energy on that instead of moving the needle on upgrading ETH to compete on demand is mindboggling The disconnect between the stakeholders having no effective say in this decision (except for forking off). Should also at least act as an additional wake-up call for any remaining supporters There are great ETH researchers supporting this proposal. Some whose previous work I admire & respect. Despite that, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room ETH's centralized leadership is a mess after the extremists consolidated control of the Ethereum Foundation & told the world to rely on others This is what we get from some of ETH's greatest researchers/others: A terrible proposal which weakens the qualities they claim to hold most dear; security & decentralization. The result; division & disruption We can love Ethereum's original spirit without supporting what it tragically has become today That is how we can move on from BTC & now ETH too, while carrying their original spirit with us. Crypto is still evolving & we have to keep evolving with it too! 🔥

• 
  David Wells (@DavidWells) reported 34 minutes ago

  Also everyone complaining about an outage means the exact opposite of what they are saying "I'm mad at github actions!" means "I am heavily reliant, more so than I ever realized, on this critical tool"

• 
  Amrit Mirchandani (@Amrit_Mirch) reported 34 minutes ago

  Difference 2: decentralized underneath. The code layer is a live mesh of open-source nodes anyone can run, DID identities, signed pushes. No single company's control plane to take everyone down (see: GitHub yesterday).