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

pull jonatack wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from jonatack:2025-10-bip3-adjustments changing 1 files +6 −3

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).
jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Oct 15, 2025
jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Oct 15, 2025

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:

provided 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

in bip-0003.md:492 in 16f2840e83 outdated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

BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs

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

d083ce5a9b

jonatack force-pushed on Oct 21, 2025
murchandamus merged this on Oct 22, 2025
murchandamus closed this on Oct 22, 2025
jonatack deleted the branch on Oct 22, 2025
jonatack removed the label Pending acceptance on Oct 22, 2025

Contributors

jonatack

murchandamus

Labels

Proposed BIP modification

Linked (view graph)

#2005 BIP-0444: Taproot and Script Limits to Prevent Arbitrary Inscriptions