From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:17 -0800 Received: from mail-oa1-f62.google.com ([209.85.160.62]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vMuN6-0004aL-CS for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:17 -0800 Received: by mail-oa1-f62.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3e82b0276d4sf4509053fac.1 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:16 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763843890; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=Qa17stkmJdOWyRjfjjF6oGCgsvhC99Yv3DJlwmKtpzc69cyWc20s/5C0Ime6CPRwwV Iehsfx8znHPITfdvLoJkRhDonf4Kidt4rFRtIh9q8LCpBIoEBbKcYsKwLWtoA4tFGudu eBQgexoyiN3RdRO+8xE/4/6p5VkH+ljRH2NaRtiBYsELZknul4of7gC2MirzShyM5Dg4 mE7/OpP73ZuI7oPpa8r8XPL/Je+FW62wxtXc5j3Mw7AIcUVWnRruP/3Rb/NQ6FD5T/Mz RgYwMB+JGFEBy1CqlhG536HdjWJgHIaoYQsQEGh6VKBRk8KVuG7klA0QjO9EBpvatscZ J5Jw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:to:references:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:feedback-id:sender:dkim-signature; bh=aZ28S1ls1BLH1kio8U00TWIYtCyo3Foaik+x3xl5COs=; fh=JrL6lixN3MrK/0nQcrOqM0Bs4lOYK5B9cGN7P3yvYP4=; b=G2/9EFC70OUDGxECBFeAVsulKHWSyBnkw21744OKLrL/mSL5t2YZLq5l3xP/UbqMRb sqUbMZ6eTnjY7IEfFKj3/rrIHbJnqJHyqHQQKPl9sKWgsXY12h8w/ONyiWgLdGM8hpjQ rYXIpMZM5i9FFB+S3VfkTskJaaKIzIdwnHWp/tiGhbkc0AwpjdELgTCpp3JC90vb3TUs CSrNEV8w5jG29kP7hcqG4CXPrIurqMdndGc4YIuRXuWnHw+E61xRVuxZQfq55m+aRdVg k/7B23gsrjKAY2yM0YJ9TWSJakEPlllsdlcR4qev7UMP48LgnVWMT/f7Sv0PPW2JiQ+p GPAA==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@sprovoost.nl header.s=fm1 header.b=LFjNAVhI; dkim=pass header.i=@messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=JKOw7y6x; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sjors@sprovoost.nl designates 103.168.172.153 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sjors@sprovoost.nl; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=sprovoost.nl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1763843890; x=1764448690; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:to:references:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:feedback-id:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=aZ28S1ls1BLH1kio8U00TWIYtCyo3Foaik+x3xl5COs=; b=dwRa9ABQJxAfb24GnPidus8yL5EmQT0ssSrIadNzWHem6v9quXY6pYHkmE7HfN/zk/ 5E5rG7KWIwMxbXdhUl4lbTt7AB4NxCcR4mi5NOOGHOno4yoTuckPAq0R4W8m5mFRX9dZ jQfFhpwM6yMvEe/ndPRdxkqgtE4QbtRdYV7Z63sdJuiqJTwZfY3BK4H4cq5VCMPLdGCZ c3j1T2SNM2fZMuaAH+vAuEWexFHd1PJnK+SGcna3raB1kyRAhVmBtg9GJ92Teq3g9vV0 P+8llT682sIxb0+BsookXC79E+Vos+xtGNbYJo6ovyPOhtv6ubGIoULtHU0pbip3lqte wM0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763843890; x=1764448690; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:to:references:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:feedback-id:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aZ28S1ls1BLH1kio8U00TWIYtCyo3Foaik+x3xl5COs=; b=uFeNL92CI01EWsc6zphsSDCCrsEmQ1Rg4OcKkX/l4cEh/MZXaCXKiqpDxSCeVc4wal WuT2SK3ynblQe6f8uy6Phc6bEALjg+nBH5fiRGYFPBc2DsLSQ25bWDaYEtqD9J/4Bl2c dSbv6d9oHS1FmFxODXiZHCweDSAtL7ofVhob59MPxMkjJErjse8+EZ7roXNwYAMotDNC plhqVOndu1Jm0jAVhJo2dNlH/4ZK2Azathd6l5bCA9PurClnoX83rAD9ljeGONzzD4HZ oFuMRJDDQ1W4MYU+sCanFBUALPS/8qPrTxFqK7nKDULEwgRZGygp2m3MNDvXGnVAQKfR GTYg== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCU2r2qQU4XiUKhpkeCSUpYCeP0XfgcRGxs1KyQyIhqIZfbvQGu64lNFJ8TXR0yOkI1zV317KeTbdzkg@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzuQAD8TtY9gpy0MLW4OHesaQr525Cov6Vo/8s5MUBKvsE9oTKR tMDhZQqHVK8uYyiotzqJcMuAH+KXHbyqq1LGg+HX4AvV9ud19BCFSbDi X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG/62jGcHrLn/IiqAiDlCKUJ3AAdxgmTtxqPq3ANqNgz94+WheSz7MSgmSEZyn6hQkOVjOgWA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:288a:b0:3ec:2fa7:8180 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ecbdf43aeemr2784094fac.0.1763843889793; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="Ae8XA+apwWaSu/HwQWkj3KSWKucGB0bGzDkMb62skufXTHJz9g==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:228b:b0:3ec:461d:1e8f with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec9b4481d0ls2121118fac.2.-pod-prod-03-us; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1987:b0:44f:94ef:baa1 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-45112910acamr2630847b6e.22.1763843885256; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a05:6808:8982:10b0:450:d4ca:2ed2 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-451112ddad7msb6e; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 11:30:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:164a:b0:340:c261:f9db with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-34733e60944mr6852355a91.10.1763839850386; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 11:30:50 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763839850; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=gRZAYziNGQ62PUiIERfGzPXZ3snu+dmgchQSpeNroXPd65z61EV01/OwASKDVebVrj qzJRhCT878d16zX134w1AmXp4lp17+FC6iuHuliBw9kTUNEebWgx/wl4TZn1gefJAzwM pXP/CEIb35I4oqUmVrcgTUtFf+0xWUj2VdeiEjweNmyJrt5XOEWVwcn6pKRKcW0op3gs 0LMfI5PynExEA/3ipp9U8/wE7Z+V2wO+RmwaGtWvwilgmM5j8hg1iASv2Ls5Y93GS33z qgGN5WtKza5sn4P2LQzLG4CP/D/KB4r8CcaAhIIYzTdscBVG6NtdlTLim1cGMQp1vruh a2+g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:feedback-id:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=D5BHMLV1liADA/KWEhlVVCOHMhxMIJAqF0SUsBA+yCw=; fh=1fF0kOACJVJoslBqWu4j4QfXwwst3Pu5cnmcrJvDmbg=; b=N86DuOEktwZGoTShvvDIxEbNJ+bC6DFdHbMnoKDexYP/ihxD2TritUiseXQ1GJJMGM uI+Ct9e+UBM4e+uMQFcr+jQjlYA12lkSG+DMuBBzHcJPnLTjui1eMON0buk+ir5TNZwX Kjpc0JnYMwj63AQyG+/CsjAGIM5uJgdt6vq3lRX8T/LIdOFxnfE3O6Sc7OkKu3g4EuYL lCkaFwGGpH+tC/16ifoyIRDYA7U2inWdYxp8pKvGv2g6W6f1IBVbAmnwtCzvXqGQ/nhR zSmlHxQ/SF5R7hY4WMGLYAyBJLexjOwZit+YCAVo2FwvB3asmw8mRaeTIR04XW2mvQsm 15xQ==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@sprovoost.nl header.s=fm1 header.b=LFjNAVhI; dkim=pass header.i=@messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=JKOw7y6x; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sjors@sprovoost.nl designates 103.168.172.153 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sjors@sprovoost.nl; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=sprovoost.nl Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com. [103.168.172.153]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 98e67ed59e1d1-34727a31df0si78149a91.0.2025.11.22.11.30.49 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 22 Nov 2025 11:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sjors@sprovoost.nl designates 103.168.172.153 as permitted sender) client-ip=103.168.172.153; Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2ED14000B0; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 14:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 22 Nov 2025 14:30:49 -0500 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddvfeefieelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnegouf hushhpvggtthffohhmrghinhculdegledmnegfrhhlucfvnfffucdludejmdenucfjughr pegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepufhjohhrshcurf hrohhvohhoshhtuceoshhjohhrshesshhprhhovhhoohhsthdrnhhlqeenucggtffrrght thgvrhhnpefhgeehhffgjeefuefhfffgheefjeeuhfevjeegleehfffghfejteetuefgff euhfenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehsjhhorhhsse hsphhrohhvohhoshhtrdhnlhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphho uhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhonhhnhigrthgrtghksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpth htohepghhmrgigfigvlhhlsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsghithgtohhi nhguvghvsehgohhoghhlvghgrhhouhhpshdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ie5e042df:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 14:30:47 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.200.81.1.6\)) Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 From: Sjors Provoost In-Reply-To: <27b2b0ba-ba85-41f5-96b8-cf3fbbe5fafdn@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 20:30:36 +0100 Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0B127C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE3CD42F42@sprovoost.nl> References: <205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b@murch.one> <3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc91@dtrt.org> <012c719c-0f56-474d-8851-a2db3a0b422cn@googlegroups.com> <27b2b0ba-ba85-41f5-96b8-cf3fbbe5fafdn@googlegroups.com> To: Jon Atack , Greg Maxwell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.200.81.1.6) X-Original-Sender: sjors@sprovoost.nl X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@sprovoost.nl header.s=fm1 header.b=LFjNAVhI; dkim=pass header.i=@messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=JKOw7y6x; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sjors@sprovoost.nl designates 103.168.172.153 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sjors@sprovoost.nl; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=sprovoost.nl Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) Why not have a simple rule which states that "low effort contributions, suc= h as fully LLM generated proposals, may be ignored without a full reading". That should give BIP editors permission to use tools to detect and auto-clo= se such content. They need to detect it anyway in order to enforce the prop= osed rule (of not allowing it). Judging effort is subjective, just like judging quality (an existing criter= ion), but it avoids the need for editors to read the whole thing. It's also not a big deal if the auto-close tools are slightly overzealous. = If an author believes their proposal was unfairly closed they can demonstra= te their effort, e.g. link to a conference talk about the topic, have someo= ne vouch that they had conversations about the proposal, etc. All that take= s is some effort :-) I don't think copyright should be a concern. If someone sends a takedown no= tice for a particular BIP, just take it down, and then either start a legal= fight or rewrite it in different words. We're not talking about patents he= re. Greg Maxwell wrote: > There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools tha= t users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are ge= nerally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even sometime= s when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only benign to us= e in the hands of those whose need is the least. =20 This is indeed an issue and also applies to high effort contributions, wher= e it's hopefully limited to a couple of paragraphs. Reviewers should be ale= rt to this. It can often be fixed by asking the author why a paragraph is s= o verbose. Implementing a BIP in code should also help get rid of any super= fluous or incorrect paragraphs. So I would expect that actually important a= nd widely used BIPs become well polished, even if they didn't start out gre= at. Unused BIPs will be lower quality, but nobody cares. - Sjors > Op 22 nov 2025, om 16:14 heeft Jon Atack het volge= nde geschreven: >=20 > The fundamental problem at this time is that prospective authors want to = use LLMs to create content, but it puts maintainers who handle the submissi= ons and the few experienced reviewers available to review the submissions a= t an asymmetric disadvantage... until or unless AI can analyze and auto-clo= se those submissions relatively reliably and fairly. Even with AI tooling t= o help, who wants to spend their time reviewing LLM content or trying to de= tect confident AI hallucinations? >=20 > Therefore, human heuristics like social capital, proof of work, and perso= nal referrals/recommendations to review are therefore likely to become even= more important. Maybe this should this be expressed in BIP 3 to set expect= ations. >=20 > We have seen a wave of BIP draft PRs opened by new GitHub accounts with n= o history or proof of work and often appearing to be LLM-generated. It may = be helpful to clarify for now in BIP 3 that such submissions are likely to = be closed outright. The alternative of letting the repository have many ope= n-yet-ignored PRs probably isn't a desirable option. >=20 > On Friday, November 21, 2025 at 5:25:48=E2=80=AFPM UTC-6 Greg Maxwell wro= te: > Because if you don't you'll eventually get figured out and people will ig= nore all your further submissions--- in fact, that will *already* happen, w= hich is part of why the guidance is useful. No one is obligated to even re= ad any of these submissions and if indeed there are many low quality AI pow= ered ones in the future (as we've been starting to see now) then many won't= be read. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:47=E2=80=AFAM Oghenovo Usiwoma wrote: > > I think it makes sense to request that submissions should state if - an= d to what degree - AI has been used. It's reasonable to expect fewer eyebal= ls on AI generated submissions as they're so easily generated and their pot= ential for wasting reviewer time is high. >=20 > In my humble opinion, I believe that humans will continue to use the easi= est method available to them to achieve their goals. If we agree that human= s will do this, then there will be a lot of AI-assited content. If I did wr= ite an AI-assited BIP draft, why would I add this "AI-label" to my BIP when= I know that it will cause reviewers to ignore it? >=20 > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:18=E2=80=AFAM Bitcoin Mechanic wrote: > I think it makes sense to request that submissions should state if - and = to what degree - AI has been used. It's reasonable to expect fewer eyeballs= on AI generated submissions as they're so easily generated and their poten= tial for wasting reviewer time is high. >=20 > If people are submitting AI generated code and lying about it than that o= bviously undermines what it is they're proposing so they're naturally disin= centivized to do so, thus the honour system should be relatively effective. >=20 > I think most people have begun using it for making outlines and tweaking = from there. The time saved is too significant for many to resist, and decla= ring that it was used for an initial outline shouldn't be too dissuasive fo= r any reviewers. >=20 > The deeper discussion around legal implications and generally about AI co= de quality is not resolvable here, it's a massive topic with deep philosoph= ical implications that go way outside the scope of BIP 3 imo. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 2:40:55=E2=80=AFPM UTC-8 Bitcoin Error= Log wrote: > A few years ago, I had this idea that bitcoin divisibility needed to be f= ixed as a misconception. I put it (proto-bip177) in our bitcoin wallet app,= promoted the idea where I could. It worked great, but only our users knew. >=20 > And then AI became good enough to use for some things. AI has been a HUGE= unlock for me and my learning and creating style. Early this year, I told = my AI, filled with context about the upcoming BIP3 standard, and examples o= f related BIPs, to make a BIP for me that properly expressed all of the nua= nces of my idea on how to handle removal of decimals in a UX. >=20 > It looked pretty good, but AI wasn't as good as it is today, and the form= atting was total slop. Thankfully, most of the BIP reviewers are actually a= mazing people, and I was able to contact them directly and ask for help, be= cause I'm not an actual developer (yet). After some private help, it was go= od enough for the mailing list, and a real draft.=20 >=20 > BIP 177 is a very simple BIP compared to most, and I'd probably make it b= etter if I started today, but ... it exists! It might be the first/only (?)= vibe-BIP, and, as of last week, due to Cashapp and Square support, it's po= ssible that BIP 177 is now in more people's hands than not.=20 >=20 > Today, I now have several private drafts of BIPs I am working on with AI,= I am trying to impose less slop on my peers as I work in private. These ne= wer BIPs are increasingly technical, and I have also started vibe-coding im= plementations to test them, and I continue growing into an engineer.=20 >=20 > Now the BIP repo is my favorite part of Bitcoin and interacting with Bitc= oin Core. I feel sincere gratitude to three BIP reviewers specifically for = humoring my sincere, yet not matured, effort and desire to improve Bitcoin = without changing consensus code. >=20 > My vision for the BIP repo and reviewers, and AI, is much different than = yours. It is part of the story that brought me closer to Bitcoin developmen= t, and deep respect to my superiors for tolerating me while I was/am fledgl= ing.=20 >=20 > Please don't add more weird subjective, exclusive barriers just because A= I is warping reality. Deal with it, and please, please, continue making an = effort to not only guard the BIP repo, but ensure it remains a fertile grou= nd where Bitcoin Core maintains an attitude of being great stewards to the = people, not only the specs.=20 >=20 > After all, we will need people to replace you some day, and those people = need role models too. >=20 > ~John Carvalho >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 1:18=E2=80=AFAM Greg Maxwell = wrote: > No doubt *you* are able to make good documents with or without the aid of= AI. >=20 > With outright AI 'authorship' you immediately run into potential copyrigh= t issues-- which I think is the origin of the "generated by" prohibition, o= therwise I think disclosure would be sufficient. >=20 > Taking a step back: is Bitcoin's welfare maximized by permitting LLM glur= ge submissions in standards documents? In some cases it's benign, I readily= agree, in others its harmful. But the number of good submissions that cou= ld be made would hardly be increased by LLMs (being limited by expert propo= sers with good ideas) but the number of potential poor submissions is incre= ased astronomically. So I think it's pretty clearly a net harm to have tex= t authored that way. >=20 > I've never had an impression that drafting was at all a limiting step in = writing BIPs, though even to the extent that it has been at times it's poss= ible to use LLMs in a review capacity to make authorship much easier ("What= 's missing / unclear?") without resorting to using it to author. >=20 > There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools tha= t users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are ge= nerally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even sometime= s when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only benign to us= e in the hands of those whose need is the least. =20 >=20 > And as a reviewer outside of Bitcoin I've found LLM powered proposers to = be absolutely the worst to deal with. Because they're not submitting their = own words and ideas, they're unable to change their thinking in response or= explain sufficiently to change yours--- the interactions often degrade to = them just copy and pasting their chatbot back to you. Because it's cheap t= o generate more text they also tend to flood you out with documents several= times longer than any human author would have bothered with. >=20 > I think LLMs have generally created something of an existential threat to= most open collaborations: Now its so easy to get flooded out by subtly wor= thless material. Many projects, including, Bitcoin have long struggled wit= h review capacity being limited and a far amount of time waste by thoughtle= ss (or even crazy!) submissions, but now it's automated and even the most w= ell meaning person may now make submissions that are as bad as the most dev= iously constructed malicious submissions could have been in the past, not e= ven know they are doing it, and can make a dozen proposals before lunch wit= hout even breaking a sweat. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:06=E2=80=AFAM David A. Harding wrote: > On 2025-11-04 15:10, Murch wrote: > > Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed: > > [...] > > - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM=E2=81=B5 > > [...] > > =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006 >=20 > I strongly disagree with this change. If I were to begin working on a=20 > new BIP today, I would use AI throughout the process. I'd ask it to=20 > help me create a todo list of what should go in the BIP; I'd ask it to=20 > create a draft based on existing BIPs, my todo list, and whatever other= =20 > work products I had (e.g. prototypes); I'd then ask it to help me refine= =20 > the document until I was satisfied. >=20 > I would, of course, review every word of the draft BIP before submitting= =20 > it for consideration and ensure that it represented the highest quality= =20 > work I was able to produce---but the ultimate work would be a mix of AI= =20 > and human writing and editing. >=20 > I think considerate use of AI would be even more valuable for people who= =20 > are less comfortable with writing technical English-language documents=20 > than I am. For example, non-native literates, people with disabilities= =20 > that make text input difficulty, and those who recognize that they're=20 > bad writers. >=20 > The PR forbidding AI doesn't go into any detail about its motivation,=20 > although it references a previous discussion[1] where a low-quality BIP= =20 > PR was opened using mostly AI-generated content. I'm guessing the=20 > motivation is that AI (by itself) generates low-quality technical=20 > content, BIPs should be high-quality technical content, and therefore we= =20 > should ban the use of AI. >=20 > However, as mentioned in the previous discussion, the BIP process=20 > already requires high-quality content.[2] AI-generated content can be=20 > high-quality, especially if its creation and editing was guided by a=20 > knowledgeable human. Banning specific tools like AI seems redundant and= =20 > penalizes people who either need those tools or who can use them=20 > effectively. >=20 > I advocate for reverting the first hunk of BIPs repository PR 2006. >=20 > -Dave >=20 > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2005 > [2] "After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it is of= =20 > **high quality** and properly formatted, the authors should open a pull= =20 > request to the BIPs repository." --BIP3, emphasis added >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc91%40dtrt.org. >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/CAAS2fgRV1aZ9xvAhBriZ%3DXdmYf5CvrvXWXsjVD07uynivW_qkg%40mail.gmail.com. >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/012c719c-0f56-474d-8851-a2db3a0b422cn%40googlegroups.com. >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/CAOCjZ9TLtsyjXTdonWK-zUj-V%3DHtFnDeb92D_W%2BVPV6TCg%3Donw%40mail.gmail.co= m. >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an= email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinde= v/27b2b0ba-ba85-41f5-96b8-cf3fbbe5fafdn%40googlegroups.com. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 0B127C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE3CD42F42%40sprovoost.nl.