BIP 3: Add editor’s note clarifying non-binding nature #2117

1. 
   lifofifoX commented at 5:13 am on March 6, 2026: none

   Summary

   • Adds a warning note at the top of BIP 3 from the BIP Editor (Bryan Bishop) clarifying that:
     • BIP 3 is not a policy document and is not binding in any way
     • Editorial decisions remain at the sole discretion of the BIP Editor
     • This document does not create any obligations for the BIP Editor
     • It would be inappropriate to allow an outside process to supplant the editor’s own judgment

   Source

   https://x.com/kanzure/status/2029707460001280383

2. BIP 3: Add editor's note clarifying non-binding nature

   Add a warning note from the BIP Editor (Bryan Bishop) clarifying that
   BIP 3 is not a policy document, is not binding, and does not create
   obligations for the BIP Editor. Editorial decisions remain at the
   sole discretion of the editor.

   4e37692989
3. 
   Kruwed commented at 10:42 am on March 6, 2026: none

   BIP3 should also mention that paying Bryan Bishop is required - https://x.com/kanzure/status/2029300651633631690
4. 
   murchandamus commented at 5:08 pm on March 6, 2026: member

   Hi @lifofifoX,

   Judging from the conversation the quote originates from, I read this PR as protesting the decision to reject the Ordinals BIP rather than actually proposing to change BIP3.

   I’m not sure whether that’s what you are actually looking for, but the Ordinals BIP had not been held up by the document needing more work or whether Ordinals would be adopted by Bitcoin users, but whether the document was to be considered on-topic for this repository. While BIP3 provides a little guidance in that regard, it leaves gray area where judgment calls are necessary. Over several years, no BIP Editor had felt strongly enough one way or the other to either assign a number or reject the proposal. Both had been suggested several times in discussions among BIP Editors in the past few years. While usually decisions regarding number assignment may not have always had unanimous support, both of these got push back. Personally, I could argue for either, but did not feel strongly either way, however, I was dissatisfied with leaving the proposal in limbo.

   In the past weeks there was a renewed push for us Editors to make a decision on the proposal. While still neither outcome had unanimous support, people were much more strongly opposed to one outcome. Finally, someone made a decision, which I consider at least an improvement over the situation that the proposal was stuck in limbo indefinitely.

   I’m going to close this PR, but please feel free to follow-up, if you feel that it should be reopened or there is more to be discussed here.

5. murchandamus closed this on Mar 6, 2026

   ---

6. 
   lifofifoX commented at 6:15 pm on March 7, 2026: none

   @murchandamus do you believe the process set by BIP 3 is being followed by the BIP editors?

   If yes, then you’re correct that there’s no need for any changes.

   If no, shouldn’t BIP 3 reflect the actual process rather than serve as transparency proxy theatre?

7. 
   murchandamus commented at 7:18 pm on March 8, 2026: member

   @lifofifoX: I don’t see any conflict with BIP3 here. I would have probably added more explanation, but whether something is on-topic is one of the judgment calls that BIP3 requires from the BIP Editors. The main topic of this repository is improvements to the Bitcoin currency, and the majority of my colleagues appears to be of the opinion that Ordinals does not fit that bill.

Contributors
lifofifoX Kruwed murchandamus