From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:30 -0800 Received: from mail-ot1-f63.google.com ([209.85.210.63]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vLIbV-00062Z-9E for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:30 -0800 Received: by mail-ot1-f63.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7c72ccd60f5sf1191295a34.0 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:28 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763460383; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=hzxZkKn/UsO2jxABNpXcNMUgH1lQWS4Zm9+9FrM7ByEKpEduSikoL4SOfu1Eti7Gex KyQL9XkvrRt79QWSGYGWNcewVQjhacK/hphxj1kDDtCOjkgirt8lH3793evwZYOFF3LY lEwPauxmjkB45XTHwTolH8UCNEOgGxNxMvLF/Op6S1Z/xZewUpVXn6WoM2Hh1q+H+hLZ w/ZvYMSBLDVHLdy6kVGP3ymWVd1yb9Cx9dR+VQX1ZAXp6RfyOju4VfnQCJcuy+kEHgLK RWMj9a+B14CyP530nkmGkEVdmAQz9Qj8dBfOq+piGBU3v5q17xfZtXW9l91yNd+7YPVw vB+g== 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:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=Or2pUubeGAOgsrXiNCrkmSn6yqTLwKN7z3i9ebwXEGM=; fh=GxXJArMQ6uMFLLgBy2zf9yI/VHlkNwMv4S55x1Cclak=; b=bwXx3osdvjR1IQuZEDRH0ZJskHc4FjD0DzbZLyHDefHK/f5Ho9+1iY/J6N/PqB55mi /ez9i6rsX1ettUMQEmksryTuohCVApXGf2Hpz9LnLOI5YwS8vayc5CxaYFGfamlmI1XB avZzOOTp7XP8zgH4yJW4zVLywBJLtQL3s+GN3K4x8QnNaMxN42Itt4CyAIEmvz2rNes1 nvbgOHjYl/LgwbNAU2p8Vew7iJFhvB7e6Lq37Sur4ujzODYkURQ9DhD3J2QYGNn1Enox H3oyCT7zLzEgbSjhgFrN4AfN/B09+Em/U6zh8qOol39LXvG6H539gDVr8VZV/6iSTgtp H7bg==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=ApgQp6fF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::530 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1763460383; x=1764065183; 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:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Or2pUubeGAOgsrXiNCrkmSn6yqTLwKN7z3i9ebwXEGM=; b=dfvRexN4PQLQwTWaXfpY+t3LOqkSfBLM3QZSczGS/yFeZmTejJxJfxOIZMZnd012R2 kCeCj+u9u8CHgIIfitYaqqC9tXoeWei9cqqvKrsJz6McEeJHRkGQ2zjYZtys2NzxoeMe TQahD6lNkj9NiMTaPTCJHvBPGM4W9hiEU1qLsdxd7Hi6jm5nm5ySgDvSVLYC+wJqtrLp IeCcyUaRWxNk0EkxHr5WWcfLcXrP4NEL+g5D/SWsSXmWhuXz8w5hkWRcHwMSeFMbJcVS zFxRyZHeC1YnSRJ9vEhOmCVnpgRwstVWe9BYDMlCyN8/dtq8vBqmwHmsH5kg2vfgNBan AzuA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763460383; x=1764065183; 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:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Or2pUubeGAOgsrXiNCrkmSn6yqTLwKN7z3i9ebwXEGM=; b=SR4fIoYjBGYxJfeZ7EQQkLMfabzA+kpMxNBVaKRklrkbwP93ph/MVupMhykOYAwOYr 5I50hB5SaUBRHegJ1y7PuAXjIKaEFNtnbMrCx/DJitxZ2vt++nRFP5x0Ak+DIyqLV/5A vKh8+TFa/edJ/ZzSIG7lHKV7pc9ca2q/tGATcApPrBcz14+gak52d8keSclKWhVNGw7N 4AbDe/itcYHi0HgRR824zR4KYVVAtkv+mmySzpD96LR5z0oKK2qCxt0h/dfq5HU8cXBd UGnKSMk6/XbK0I1x/NwJS+NQsNSi+15clnYXEbBEvxIko6aD5Om5QOlNMyO0uVv4YAaQ /1XA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763460383; x=1764065183; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Or2pUubeGAOgsrXiNCrkmSn6yqTLwKN7z3i9ebwXEGM=; b=tLEr7XHHWnQ0TRsIQ6bYwffi7VslWzrlaFj6lCuUfMVcxIUMqanZwGHPss1oE4YE9u MPcfZq2/h7/moLrRarI8XguOA0h2daDqD00SD5pFJYA/FC4WhPofUeHfpx6r0s/lebA4 /j3oJV1r4pcMStLw3tM3buzEUuPBh6TL6JSG9CW6J7uaLdIdbVoVXBmHCuJKF1YiIM3w V97bBqdK5fB/Qga8zRvuN5fOC8NvBK2eDAXVWhpPxWRaNgWr7+p6iJS7dZHTHrzrqmIs QPN2IFKgYrnRxL0KA+GT3obpBKw2f+6BXmHsh3AcTC2s4nhpWwFP/abhLQ97AFJv3K+U Lb0Q== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCX3zgnwXk1G+M8gA97Zm7vS85dDBD7KQgbaQxE9TVpKPbxax/hAkUPcng2BQYnx6ibP4PiUPlN269Qd@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywncp3YNPUfB+OOBO8Skt36ex4SluT4Gf1nYGozRsP96FkUmP1F uuXbxHTFE3bT8fgPc2Y7EY23V6odiAKyl/lP+DlW/YyENJCjCii5za+h X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEcxPSVZffZuPdE7AQuONp98QEzq/oEIvR35oqNRKlqFXxRIl952RORv2pkq+Gg70HbpMUEkQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:41d5:b0:3e1:739d:4535 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3e868f17befmr7205154fac.20.1763460382503; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:22 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="Ae8XA+ZlUJSB5/gT+BZ824NtuDN1ZlIw4FDh4Uo85kx5boWTXA==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:6b15:b0:3d5:92b8:657b with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3e84b349b83ls2515191fac.0.-pod-prod-09-us; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2f1b:b0:450:d9ce:7d71 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-450d9ce7fa0mr1658582b6e.46.1763460377488; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 02:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a05:6808:8908:20b0:450:c180:fd79 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-450c1811350msb6e; Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:26:44 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1a2f:b0:295:5da6:6011 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2986a6b83e8mr169318845ad.11.1763440003350; Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:26:43 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763440003; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=SGuaNRDbkR4y5t/JLwmDVYYaPeyUhqhtdOERpQEZ+CD2MWTBKJ0Lky9bmaMQuyzG0E kXhno2N0thXA2oAJKGFidH5Nd1VEBYDWmzt5/cO78Bok1atZc4RXe5ARz8qonA/EdlyR bzBCt2fAYPBKH7oylQgPdf49UldTVfF+FEL3whnbMF3jZ7vFq+ujHBA0tx9zoNGO909R SJ02vOwWf65FbZW59bjfUGLdGHpR7WdXeaSaEFLNcJIIxSqCGO818PXoThIcuKOyp6FI 3SKOYgswgPuJbsauvArZHRS/cftv5/A0/dzJz/SK964ZfSV5HTeXXq9hD2+l8qISG4/O Y5dg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=ZRZVKiSBIMgLRMxQGbyB/Ga7bmpLkHeLqQYKvpiHdp8=; fh=jRYg04Pl0IOQLxD6rA0ou4c50cbDWVvY9M7F1jDuQR0=; b=kk4a3i2WjSp9bdTjOTWSyy0NVDTFZZw+GmTIyM01n07QAWaAVBJU4VAk0X3QsEP7J4 s2eFGlECmzYYhWWEaHnuWOD61qYmnPdVUvehxCG0auV/rpkrij/WRF/9YKkRQD17OHao vVO23OMZ8QLbTNq6UbeSTR0PTH8bB/9EWkER1KMwvBzuvdi79cVKRZzv8vbMzW50qtQH SIKKPTjfInXMSonw7wCiMiQ6YnNejfqnTmyJEa2XPCFnuoVKtHytdSst8v0U3ZUz5PMP YNd4ZYWNAmfr0l5yRBna69pwN95YNTodXLyFG+I0PC6W5wcJwsIuC0UcoX7GaVLmWSnQ MjxQ==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=ApgQp6fF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::530 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d9443c01a7336-2985c27e49bsi6024565ad.4.2025.11.17.20.26.43 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::530 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::530; Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-bc1f6dfeb3dso2844442a12.1 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:26:43 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsjVvg4HR1hZ01iNYyx3ZpbIz9WQ1TXkA7i6lBBuvjP3UHsdja95IaomS1AvXF nn41+eRDPfG1ATz5xHZ+smUyhWeI1mI18yty3aEw6SnD8EURMO+xE7f1vMSfy8YwjILL2HVRoPk FrBNKy3IJxUDzbJT/3r9KGDNL83Kig0BgjNAP9RvBG3iAc0SKHF3fBOcmYh/O8XCATgfLBvRKPQ bJ2I+52lsMISeBNpdGB3gzuAUha+WK7yMhzBdK7QxMPJrjWtTUaG7x2jF8ikUNiPstCDPrgLdbG VJe5aURZ7CXH0B1j6RrZZU5OKDgMADRgbBiKKNTv X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:fb05:b0:11b:9386:a387 with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11b9386a6c0mr6730811c88.42.1763440002494; Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:26:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b@murch.one> <9456f7d3-1a45-489a-81b8-bb8fdabb7a9b@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <9456f7d3-1a45-489a-81b8-bb8fdabb7a9b@dashjr.org> From: Greg Maxwell Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 04:26:30 +0000 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bmSYLZeD_4SjpoeRNWpgyiic8ewcacBulw6KjwKz7JqqMadav6JtFN_kBc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 To: Luke Dashjr Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee77500643d6de17" X-Original-Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=ApgQp6fF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gmaxwell@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::530 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gmaxwell@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com 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: -0.5 (/) --000000000000ee77500643d6de17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable if anything I think the AI disclosure is arguably too weak, particularly with the well documented instances of LLM psychosis and other weird influence and judgement compromising effects. The current text seems adequate to me and shouldn't be weakened further. On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 11:21=E2=80=AFPM Luke Dashjr wrot= e: > I have completed my review of the current BIP 3 proposal, and opened PR > #2037 to address these issues: > > * It misses that BIPs should be relevant to more than just one Bitcoin > project. > * AI/LLM usage disclosure is too much. As long as no content is > LLM-generated, we should be fine. > * Authors/Deputies assumes the champion (Author) was involved in writing > the document. This is a deviation from the current process where the > champion can be reassigned by editors if the current one is MIA. > * Required sections lacks an actual content section (typically > Specification). > * Reference Implementation is probably too specific with aux file or PR > requirement. One might conceive BIPs where the reference is an > independent/new software repository, for example. > * Editors have always been able to assign numbers for their own BIPs - > that isn't considered self-assignment, and recent confusion in the > community suggests this should be clarified. > * The requirement for public discussion/feedback/interest is new, and > inappropriate. While typically this may be the case, it should be > possible to put forward BIPs without relying on other contributors. > * Test vectors may not be applicable to all specification BIPs. > * "Compliant" is often the wrong term, as BIPs are recommendations. > "Compatible" seems more appropriate. > * Avoid implying every BIP Editor must reply to every new idea sent to > the ML > * The recent addition of "proposed by one of the authors [to the ML]" is > confusing and contradictory: it doesn't make sense to require the author > to have initiated the discussion himself, and the person who did may not > be interested in taking on the champion role (and may not be willing to > cooperate with submitting it and subsequently trasferring it) > * The Rationale stated lowercase "bitcoin" is used to refer to units of > the currency, but no such reference is made, and instead it is only > incorrectly used lowercase. All instances have been corrected to > capitalized and the rationale entry removed. > > Additionally, I identified the following issues which may need further > discussion to address: > > * It may make sense to replace "Authors" with "Champions"? > * "co-owned by the Bitcoin community" seems like a good idea abstractly, > but is under-defined and leaves too much to editors' interpretation > * License-Code should probably be either retained or past BIPs folded > into the single License header. > * Some BIPs have introduced number registries (eg, HD derivation paths); > it might be nice to provide some formal guidance in BIP 3 > * The set of acceptable licenses is too restrictive, and contradicts > recommendation to use upstream license. (eg, AGPL) Not having been used > before is not a good reason in itself to prohibit usage. > * Not all BIPs' Created dates are the dates of assignment. Are we going > to dig through history to see when precisely existing BIPs were assigned? > * Why increase the Title length? > * Rationale states the Layer is permitted for non-Specification BIPs, > but the "Changed from BIP 2" section plans to eliminate this reason for > doing so. > * "When is a BIP "accepted"?" writes off BIP 2's Comments feature, but > ignores that BIP 2 also includes extensive explainations for determining > if a BIP has been accepted or not, which seem still largely applicable. > "Why are Process BIPs living documents?" similarly reduces that feature > to "especially with fork proposals in mind" which is also untrue. These > should probably get improved, even if BIP 3 doesn't mirror this feature. > > Luke > > On 11/4/25 20:10, Murch wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > After planned work on BIP=E2=80=AF3=E2=81=B0 finished in February, BIP= =E2=80=AF3 was advanced > > to Proposed in March 2025=C2=B9. A few minor adjustments were made to B= IP=E2=80=AF3 > > since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request > > that would activate BIP=E2=80=AF3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull= /1820. > > > > At this point,=E2=80=AFBIP=E2=80=AF3 has received over 600 comments on = GitHub and has > > been discussed in multiple threads on this list. The proposal has been > > Proposed for over seven months, and while several minor improvements > > were proposed and processed, the proposal has no unaddressed > > objections stated here or on the activation pull request. A growing > > list of people has expressed explicit support for activating BIP=E2=80= =AF3 by > > leaving an ACK on the pull request after reviewing the BIP: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820#issue-2990155954 > > > > I formally propose a motion to adopt BIP=E2=80=AF3 to replace BIP=E2=80= =AF2 as our > > BIPs Process. > > > > Since BIP=E2=80=AF2 doesn=E2=80=99t specify a procedure for activating = Process BIPs, I > > suggest that people who wish to state their support leave an ACK on > > #1820 or reply in this thread. Similarly, I would like to invite > > anyone to state concerns or raise objections here or on #1820. > > While BIP=E2=80=AF3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has be= en open > > for over half a year, I suggest that we give all would-be reviewers > > another four weeks, until 2025-12-02, before evaluating whether there > > is rough consensus for merging the activation pull request. This > > should be ample time to review and discuss BIP=E2=80=AF3 as well as the > > activation PR, even for people that have so far not engaged with the > > material. > > > > Best, > > Murch > > > > ---- > > > > Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed: > > > > - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions=C2=B2 > > - The License-Code header was dropped in favor of requiring that the > > license terms of the auxiliary files be specified in the respective > > directory or folder per a license header or LICENSE file=C2=B2 > > - The =E2=80=9CCreated=E2=80=9D header has been renamed to =E2=80=9CAss= igned=E2=80=9D=C2=B3 > > - The BIP text has been improved to clarify: > > - the purpose of the BIPs repository=E2=81=B4 > > - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the > > mailing list=E2=81=B4 > > - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of > > proposals=E2=81=B4 > > - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress=E2=81=B4 > > - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM=E2=81=B5 > > > > =E2=81=B0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md > > =C2=B9 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794 > > =C2=B2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892 > > =C2=B3 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970 > > =E2=81=B4 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819 > > =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006 > > > > -- > 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/bitcoindev/9456f7d3-1a45-489a-81b8-bb8f= dabb7a9b%40dashjr.org > . > --=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/= CAAS2fgRSCqdjde%2B%3DZJcDkPmkfmSvEHdxcrM7fC1h8T7J6kzSFg%40mail.gmail.com. --000000000000ee77500643d6de17 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
if anything I think the AI disclosure is arguably too= weak, particularly=C2=A0with the=C2=A0well documented instances of LLM psy= chosis and other weird influence and judgement compromising effects.=C2=A0 = The current text seems adequate to me and shouldn't be weakened further= .


On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 11:21= =E2=80=AFPM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.= org> wrote:
I have completed my review of the current BIP 3 proposal, and opened PR =
#2037 to address these issues:

* It misses that BIPs should be relevant to more than just one Bitcoin
project.
* AI/LLM usage disclosure is too much. As long as no content is
LLM-generated, we should be fine.
* Authors/Deputies assumes the champion (Author) was involved in writing the document. This is a deviation from the current process where the
champion can be reassigned by editors if the current one is MIA.
* Required sections lacks an actual content section (typically
Specification).
* Reference Implementation is probably too specific with aux file or PR requirement. One might conceive BIPs where the reference is an
independent/new software repository, for example.
* Editors have always been able to assign numbers for their own BIPs -
that isn't considered self-assignment, and recent confusion in the
community suggests this should be clarified.
* The requirement for public discussion/feedback/interest is new, and
inappropriate. While typically this may be the case, it should be
possible to put forward BIPs without relying on other contributors.
* Test vectors may not be applicable to all specification BIPs.
* "Compliant" is often the wrong term, as BIPs are recommendation= s.
"Compatible" seems more appropriate.
* Avoid implying every BIP Editor must reply to every new idea sent to
the ML
* The recent addition of "proposed by one of the authors [to the ML]&q= uot; is
confusing and contradictory: it doesn't make sense to require the autho= r
to have initiated the discussion himself, and the person who did may not be interested in taking on the champion role (and may not be willing to cooperate with submitting it and subsequently trasferring it)
* The Rationale stated lowercase "bitcoin" is used to refer to un= its of
the currency, but no such reference is made, and instead it is only
incorrectly used lowercase. All instances have been corrected to
capitalized and the rationale entry removed.

Additionally, I identified the following issues which may need further
discussion to address:

* It may make sense to replace "Authors" with "Champions&quo= t;?
* "co-owned by the Bitcoin community" seems like a good idea abst= ractly,
but is under-defined and leaves too much to editors' interpretation
* License-Code should probably be either retained or past BIPs folded
into the single License header.
* Some BIPs have introduced number registries (eg, HD derivation paths); it might be nice to provide some formal guidance in BIP 3
* The set of acceptable licenses is too restrictive, and contradicts
recommendation to use upstream license. (eg, AGPL) Not having been used before is not a good reason in itself to prohibit usage.
* Not all BIPs' Created dates are the dates of assignment. Are we going=
to dig through history to see when precisely existing BIPs were assigned? * Why increase the Title length?
* Rationale states the Layer is permitted for non-Specification BIPs,
but the "Changed from BIP 2" section plans to eliminate this reas= on for
doing so.
* "When is a BIP "accepted"?" writes off BIP 2's Co= mments feature, but
ignores that BIP 2 also includes extensive explainations for determining if a BIP has been accepted or not, which seem still largely applicable. "Why are Process BIPs living documents?" similarly reduces that f= eature
to "especially with fork proposals in mind" which is also untrue.= These
should probably get improved, even if BIP 3 doesn't mirror this feature= .

Luke

On 11/4/25 20:10, Murch wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP=E2=80=AF3=E2=81=B0 finished in February, BIP= =E2=80=AF3 was advanced
> to Proposed in March 2025=C2=B9. A few minor adjustments were made to = BIP=E2=80=AF3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request <= br> > that would activate BIP=E2=80=AF3: https://github.com/= bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point,=E2=80=AFBIP=E2=80=AF3 has received over 600 comments on= GitHub and has
> been discussed in multiple threads on this list. The proposal has been=
> Proposed for over seven months, and while several minor improvements <= br> > were proposed and processed, the proposal has no unaddressed
> objections stated here or on the activation pull request. A growing > list of people has expressed explicit support for activating BIP=E2=80= =AF3 by
> leaving an ACK on the pull request after reviewing the BIP:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/= 1820#issue-2990155954
>
> I formally propose a motion to adopt BIP=E2=80=AF3 to replace BIP=E2= =80=AF2 as our
> BIPs Process.
>
> Since BIP=E2=80=AF2 doesn=E2=80=99t specify a procedure for activating= Process BIPs, I
> suggest that people who wish to state their support leave an ACK on > #1820 or reply in this thread. Similarly, I would like to invite
> anyone to state concerns or raise objections here or on #1820.
> While BIP=E2=80=AF3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has b= een open
> for over half a year, I suggest that we give all would-be reviewers > another four weeks, until 2025-12-02, before evaluating whether there =
> is rough consensus for merging the activation pull request. This
> should be ample time to review and discuss BIP=E2=80=AF3 as well as th= e
> activation PR, even for people that have so far not engaged with the <= br> > material.
>
> Best,
> Murch
>
> ----
>
> Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions=C2=B2
> - The License-Code header was dropped in favor of requiring that the <= br> > license terms of the auxiliary files be specified in the respective > directory or folder per a license header or LICENSE file=C2=B2
> - The =E2=80=9CCreated=E2=80=9D header has been renamed to =E2=80=9CAs= signed=E2=80=9D=C2=B3
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> =C2=A0 - the purpose of the BIPs repository=E2=81=B4
> =C2=A0 - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on = the
> mailing list=E2=81=B4
> =C2=A0 - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption= of
> proposals=E2=81=B4
> =C2=A0 - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress=E2= =81=B4
> =C2=A0 - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM=E2=81=B5=
>
> =E2=81=B0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bip= s/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> =C2=B9 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794 > =C2=B2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892 > =C2=B3 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970 > =E2=81=B4 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/9456f7= d3-1a45-489a-81b8-bb8fdabb7a9b%40dashjr.org.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/= d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRSCqdjde%2B%3DZJcDkPmkfmSvEHdxcrM7fC1h8T7J6kzSFg%= 40mail.gmail.com.
--000000000000ee77500643d6de17--