BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs #2006

1. 
   jonatack commented at 9:53 pm on October 15, 2025: member

   and soundness, and ensure it was proposed to the ML by one of the BIP authors.

   Follows up on the discussion starting from #2005 (comment).

2. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Oct 15, 2025
3. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Oct 15, 2025
4. in bip-0003.md:41 in 16f2840e83

   36@@ -37,7 +37,10 @@ Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, inciden
   37 the Bitcoin protocol, peer-to-peer network, and client software may be acceptable.
   38 
   39 BIPs are intended to be a means for proposing new protocol features, coordinating client standards, and
   40-documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.
   41+documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. A BIP may be submitted by anyone,
   42+provided it is the original work of its authors and the content is of high quality, e.g. do not waste
   

   ---

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 1:55 pm on October 20, 2025:

   0provided it is the original work of its authors and the content is of high quality, e.g. does not waste
   

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 3:33 pm on October 21, 2025:

   done
5. in bip-0003.md:492 in 16f2840e83 outdated

   488@@ -486,7 +489,7 @@ For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following:
   489 * Motivation, Rationale, and Backward Compatibility have been addressed
   490 * Specification provides sufficient detail for implementation
   491 * The defined Layer header must be correctly assigned for the given specification
   492-* The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible, and all aspects are addressed as necessary
   493+* The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible and sound, and all aspects are addressed as necessary
   

   ---

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 2:26 pm on October 20, 2025:

   I‘m a little on the fence regarding back the “technical sound” criteria. I felt that it was pretty subjective and actually had removed it on purpose from BIP2 to BIP3, but in the end, we do want BIPs to be well-reasoned and designed which it expresses better than “feasible”.

   I’m still mulling this over, big fan of the rest of the amendments.

   ---

   

   jonatack commented at 8:24 pm on October 21, 2025:

   My guess is that occasional subjective discretion will probably ~always be needed to avoid making BIP submissions overly game-able, and the criterion that BIPs be technically sound seems fundamental as a firewall (when needed).

   ---

   

   murchandamus commented at 7:24 am on October 22, 2025:

   Yeah, since I started writing BIP3, I have had to review my ambition to reduce judgment calls required from the BIP Editors.

   Let’s add it.

6. BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs

   and soundness, and ensure it was proposed to the ML by one of the BIP authors

   d083ce5a9b
7. jonatack force-pushed on Oct 21, 2025
8. murchandamus merged this on Oct 22, 2025
9. murchandamus closed this on Oct 22, 2025

   ---

10. jonatack deleted the branch on Oct 22, 2025
11. jonatack removed the label Pending acceptance on Oct 22, 2025

Contributors
jonatack murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification