From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:52 -0800 Received: from mail-oo1-f64.google.com ([209.85.161.64]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vMvLe-0005EC-HC for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:52 -0800 Received: by mail-oo1-f64.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-657490e060dsf3233754eaf.3 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:50 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763847644; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=GbqGVfuhMQZjKjhfFtbpndKjFEgzZKwGvC0O4JDb6oldm5Bax7nQ8mUq1OzkGvnAwo CqOyC6hJZtggAhT5awpcBxeALJrWn1UIXChFxeZiKNU5Z2gOuS0jfATW+6KFnfnhymyU l+fhizA/KDyw36Cjl0spubAT85UU4t+H1EaF4CCxugKOuoaOBqldc9+VLt1ckFo4ecHt aeYpT/9VvpbpXjBL+E62uyJk4XenaW6p1b6vguZLoh7BPlAcCnqvNieGhT0YN356C3Hg M2xk176je1USyiojyFnontmA4q+GAg2ahL8GQy1nXZE/IUn4dmMDYh7y3Ri9iAB/tGkk w34g== 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=2HrhL3Ju5KaDgamp1W/EPmSOq7SYEoXyTD2JaTXOtPc=; fh=xmL0lkRcWtsR66H2InHAYAasJF9DXt9Hjxd5NzzTGao=; b=FmDxbvSDMTfqe612rpOAWBgIPBJLjfVhPCWdSZk6frieFEczdRKsW1Zrdz2dhWoakv XvepEcpfp5qzyPeet1PlFbnzOC6zFRv4snOfcwX4l9/VCp9z/pVpXpOghuela46HitJG kPhb38JMax+yePwTqZL3VqmQ8GIsLB8ht6sTTxoahj7/2POXGLtNoQF2AJXJN1Aj28YQ zMn0SC7bRGQBjhLKM0W2BbyT1PU5SotAh7hAc/mS9EtENhsCVtJ8Hc9wgEktUwGjS43Y dLyf7yeHPD+lhRwN+53Wwmf1c+Lcg1pkKhUxTsgjRcAa2pMPgyrdiFUlgY3AjVE90UyU Kijg==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=JS1iLb1J; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@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=1763847644; x=1764452444; 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=2HrhL3Ju5KaDgamp1W/EPmSOq7SYEoXyTD2JaTXOtPc=; b=LHfhV7QyqL/Tl4/JZheyY+Ihqmc0eYAw0oI93z/ALd3YsExmU3WlDRufGFA0xxiGIq Rh4EvqpzI0QFy+eCJKtKNfhricAnhtYagwjI2CibQdWmq+Mpl/2lSOgnRydV65rQ/NLv US2jWnVoqrvtG9lagzEjyAntyCDgbJVCrubFwdjHlhXXGjPe8G9U9TxJtAGyE/XIeCjo Ajajv/U+kqU8pW03hY4TQCdpADL+LqbllxD2gaoWws7yRum40X3whEOM+Fs1vlP/LQVw +GqFJ6b6Ird0YLxmVprFYm2YhvlzoxTI0x8EFY1FA23AtL4+5880txq6jpPVe4aw+ff/ Pbpw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763847644; x=1764452444; 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=2HrhL3Ju5KaDgamp1W/EPmSOq7SYEoXyTD2JaTXOtPc=; b=ESx8uZL/d3frvYP8Hog6epCRf9g9bGadkxky5s/SugEMjImuLY+xweRGk2ogyBHbSs 9yd8RsG2H6eyOYW2Tr2l8VDo1EnPcJzz2i4AFIPq7zddJQ438XvysCqrAw8sjs/CfDgf PVUABwaRHNEU1wOCLixRidBncBeyQ/BtdQXL2B2e+BEuvq+wbtbCXW9+HQb/V+SW9ecO zep1HyyASnpD/qmJsJLL760vxPgL+YjJoKW1TItGg6gmC/Eo/8H6XFa9lKaNSszCwtXN qKX/7e/Mz4QMHO0ejfw67gkUg3Ujj3Sl13mKrTdhLxcAO/zaONb1D2Z2kYG5cfZfq8U0 jD/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763847644; x=1764452444; 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=2HrhL3Ju5KaDgamp1W/EPmSOq7SYEoXyTD2JaTXOtPc=; b=IkmzCCimjPaMRFQ5cJXSffctYRLauOknKGq0Lv/Kjcpe6L1LyGdaMFejvwneqCST7R UnzCdfXmBsii0Y6RlyQTNBe6Ed5j9T83YDC/DCxzksPXi9PKRGnsTaU4/+v3LAEJBntR dvyH+cEpm6hv9KMbIhJhFr5HMMZ+ufnJfS0zsWuxMFR8hZWV4PFZ03f1KPvkg16LwGkg KSZYEP5z0xfDXSNBECWFAYFElX/VIEYGcjuYrTE5uw9zwXHPMPUXgdRWMKKvzsNKawAM DBrbT1r8IJFZ5bsSYw+S0bQJ2V3HkVN1WP0hnenqcxAx9TZJe00nHr2Dey9TtzHHRvgj LcpQ== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCXGRKZzDrWvIT4hE2x0ZvB+4rpEfTtsiKXjicCZ4ovJUljUXjLPOkMbw47klOefcIrhbRixgKAaFcod@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzaycUWvwxqHEt6RWEHLp9MX/Eb6ZeQaKAqFaEmb7NpyWHdmzSV C1UIB/b/ktkqKwnQ6b15urlGnVeE1iMDIxyVG9v3923E2LOp2ZXHgLpQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFFPsEenBKYqVHKC2IWwfVifR8CuToJr5hq5w2NRbxDrfYsIAxLuPxq0nKDcDnpixbKT3Uw+g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:a1d2:b0:3e8:8e56:6717 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ecbe5d96c3mr2479777fac.55.1763847643976; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="Ae8XA+ZUdkX8Qxkr7irD/bMfEVOqf6HViIUU+Gwkyrgfx9/XmQ==" Received: by 2002:a05:6870:414f:b0:3d5:92b8:657b with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec9b05b09els2100977fac.0.-pod-prod-09-us; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:39 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCXWelrcR+dIJwNDcD33ZfM3kJWjxNQGlhanqXqV24KSISd/oErF8Ms+Qy2sQlJdR0n7CvX+p5ECKm84@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:4fcf:b0:450:3b8b:b472 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-45112d7c7c6mr2810395b6e.63.1763847639714; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:40:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4d6:b0:8b2:e5d4:9264 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8b32b4b8aa1ms85a; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:53:43 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCUzEGMKcasxyyfdMRFTPqZ2yRIY4mYvjgh+bcKlN76/j8oW5yeKFUOlztshRBMNaKpazpgeVQ19orC1@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:578f:b0:5db:36e5:7b41 with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-5e1de28c305mr2444002137.11.1763844822723; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1763844822; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=DYNQmhL2MEwpfcQZIRc+XAzT54t76xFJ7RlW7WwY/SgAVWiQPGkbvm8bZSPCE75WmI VdEWbKD67LoyXZ80C5euKwlUjwniOpD70zt3XVVdsIOLO1oi4ej5PKJwTuecsoHgg05G hoKCeu4BA9g7Do+1Bl/sqTGeJYwLKqjfAQyk59vnRgaJuW7FVcLt8NCkjb3acKOJFEev MpUAuZjVwMU63LhhVOmFa7eNc3CFMRHSaT49HdaJWsSQYdept7EWp+vXkVp1OXfTn4y+ gXh+th9FsM8b1F1rtwU2NzKnEKUgd4xSAe1WFjzWaLORGtg3QaIbSqvPALBqVk5wB6VJ shMw== 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=PRRy2+6P+6rdsoW/k5MmzUTtnjAPT/ZMyJnvYIASJuw=; fh=qpArQEBDqlayfibROnILLygUJl1Tg/OHniw6DSIsDUA=; b=ZQYOnNlrQG5kfzG2c5yyPXXlmc/rX9SN7hRXgqunTQ7NdHzh6oyRfzOkEBoH5ucCmX PFFvRf1rg4YZqiqfdTRfuCJSV4aeo4pZzyvP0yA1Dzne9r0s131hDfS6zShTVHu9NOub bewIsrAjKrgvc6iFfWVMbbUGGyF8/P2RkisbdE8czYhY8+FwBqSi61jitSA0/j8Z9gcD YW5AhiZbhSS0MK30033URiZMb2u+c99p48COwS8wKi30ngRbGXOLBCtTbcGI2y6SWKon KmejmvqYLTxDhzpx4cUzSuk7FkRx+bCZTq1ywo6/TEDweFFVhrtcMGU9u54SrD2l2Jyy IPLA==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=JS1iLb1J; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-ot1-x32e.google.com (mail-ot1-x32e.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ada2fe7eead31-5e1dfe4fc75si87779137.2.2025.11.22.12.53.42 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e; Received: by mail-ot1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7c730af8d69so1928418a34.1 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUy+bS1UVHMRYArEefsmViZFZ4jS3SPHdgTJQ7hTvg2OWQGnTDN9zIP/ENQUYNbfLq/dCNmY89QjeuB@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv9oedAeXXuET+Hb1mWSiEW5K2H3f2Or11OCKXbAlz1safiPhrwjP0GYw+Eomn ydoBKtCIMrOUiKpjUXLxf+nngm/WA+fL58804zueYBBsOG4FFZMdR5liJD+ukOtFMwscOQIR/1G u0WfBdCyWC3oA9OBq0aEd9SJ1LxKkCVren5/ieaSSIh8569InWt/fb0d9qPucg1aI3WynPtOMhg 7p52HSLQ7xl0koxIlHsLyVCMHJQSSxT1TAqf2KMzZ3ytyVyxCmA1QLTGouinghfWFn6Qoat8l+c cfYcSvszu6hkD8tpU3ST8YSjopvfDMvPLn8t/xSpkSTOipYAkGQoiFXigjPaSEwcFdrydzowoGd wqnZT8l2OWsQ2PMGoT5beh0X7v2R0q3V3pNnAO/kqjzQn X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:124b:b0:43d:1faa:5849 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4511269dca5mr2910668b6e.0.1763844821877; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 12:53:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <0B127C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE3CD42F42@sprovoost.nl> In-Reply-To: <0B127C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE3CD42F42@sprovoost.nl> From: "/dev /fd0" Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2025 02:23:29 +0530 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_blw1Zv4Cx-uOjHrjMnhJ6c3WvmNyd7WYLrVLLcwMYgH9J3-sbxwegZ7-9k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 To: Sjors Provoost Cc: Jon Atack , Greg Maxwell , Bitcoin Development Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c09070644352099" X-Original-Sender: alicexbtong@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=JS1iLb1J; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@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 (/) --0000000000000c09070644352099 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BIPs are just documents that can be maintained in any repository. Nobody cares whether the document was assigned a number by the gatekeepers or if AI was used to improve the grammar, content etc. /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 2:08=E2=80=AFAM Sjors Provoost = wrote: > Why not have a simple rule which states that "low effort contributions, > such 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-close such content. They need to detect it anyway in order to enforc= e > the proposed rule (of not allowing it). > > Judging effort is subjective, just like judging quality (an existing > criterion), 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 > demonstrate their effort, e.g. link to a conference talk about the topic, > have someone vouch that they had conversations about the proposal, etc. A= ll > that takes is some effort :-) > > I don't think copyright should be a concern. If someone sends a takedown > notice 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 here. > > Greg Maxwell wrote: > > > There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools > that users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM a= re > generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even > sometimes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only > benign to use in the hands of those whose need is the least. > > This is indeed an issue and also applies to high effort contributions, > where it's hopefully limited to a couple of paragraphs. Reviewers should = be > alert to this. It can often be fixed by asking the author why a paragraph > is so verbose. Implementing a BIP in code should also help get rid of any > superfluous or incorrect paragraphs. So I would expect that actually > important and widely used BIPs become well polished, even if they didn't > start out great. Unused BIPs will be lower quality, but nobody cares. > > - Sjors > > > Op 22 nov 2025, om 16:14 heeft Jon Atack het > volgende geschreven: > > > > The fundamental problem at this time is that prospective authors want t= o > use LLMs to create content, but it puts maintainers who handle the > submissions and the few experienced reviewers available to review the > submissions at an asymmetric disadvantage... until or unless AI can analy= ze > and auto-close those submissions relatively reliably and fairly. Even wit= h > AI tooling to help, who wants to spend their time reviewing LLM content o= r > trying to detect confident AI hallucinations? > > > > Therefore, human heuristics like social capital, proof of work, and > personal referrals/recommendations to review are therefore likely to beco= me > even more important. Maybe this should this be expressed in BIP 3 to set > expectations. > > > > We have seen a wave of BIP draft PRs opened by new GitHub accounts with > no history or proof of work and often appearing to be LLM-generated. It m= ay > be helpful to clarify for now in BIP 3 that such submissions are likely t= o > be closed outright. The alternative of letting the repository have many > open-yet-ignored PRs probably isn't a desirable option. > > > > On Friday, November 21, 2025 at 5:25:48=E2=80=AFPM UTC-6 Greg Maxwell w= rote: > > Because if you don't you'll eventually get figured out and people will > ignore all your further submissions--- in fact, that will *already* happe= n, > which is part of why the guidance is useful. No one is obligated to even > read any of these submissions and if indeed there are many low quality AI > powered ones in the future (as we've been starting to see now) then many > won't be read. > > > > > > > > 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 - > 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 potential for wasting reviewer time is high. > > > > In my humble opinion, I believe that humans will continue to use the > easiest method available to them to achieve their goals. If we agree that > humans will do this, then there will be a lot of AI-assited content. If I > did write 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? > > > > 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 - 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 > potential for wasting reviewer time is high. > > > > If people are submitting AI generated code and lying about it than that > obviously undermines what it is they're proposing so they're naturally > disincentivized to do so, thus the honour system should be relatively > effective. > > > > I think most people have begun using it for making outlines and tweakin= g > from there. The time saved is too significant for many to resist, and > declaring that it was used for an initial outline shouldn't be too > dissuasive for any reviewers. > > > > The deeper discussion around legal implications and generally about AI > code quality is not resolvable here, it's a massive topic with deep > philosophical implications that go way outside the scope of BIP 3 imo. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 2:40:55=E2=80=AFPM UTC-8 Bitcoin Err= or Log > wrote: > > A few years ago, I had this idea that bitcoin divisibility needed to be > fixed 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. > > > > 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 of related BIPs, to make a BIP for me that properly expressed al= l > of the nuances of my idea on how to handle removal of decimals in a UX. > > > > It looked pretty good, but AI wasn't as good as it is today, and the > formatting was total slop. Thankfully, most of the BIP reviewers are > actually amazing people, and I was able to contact them directly and ask > for help, because I'm not an actual developer (yet). After some private > help, it was good enough for the mailing list, and a real draft. > > > > BIP 177 is a very simple BIP compared to most, and I'd probably make it > better 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 > possible that BIP 177 is now in more people's hands than not. > > > > 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. The= se > newer BIPs are increasingly technical, and I have also started vibe-codin= g > implementations to test them, and I continue growing into an engineer. > > > > Now the BIP repo is my favorite part of Bitcoin and interacting with > Bitcoin Core. I feel sincere gratitude to three BIP reviewers specificall= y > for humoring my sincere, yet not matured, effort and desire to improve > Bitcoin without changing consensus code. > > > > My vision for the BIP repo and reviewers, and AI, is much different tha= n > yours. It is part of the story that brought me closer to Bitcoin > development, and deep respect to my superiors for tolerating me while I > was/am fledgling. > > > > Please don't add more weird subjective, exclusive barriers just because > AI 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 > ground where Bitcoin Core maintains an attitude of being great stewards t= o > the people, not only the specs. > > > > After all, we will need people to replace you some day, and those peopl= e > need role models too. > > > > ~John Carvalho > > > > > > 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. > > > > With outright AI 'authorship' you immediately run into potential > copyright issues-- which I think is the origin of the "generated by" > prohibition, otherwise I think disclosure would be sufficient. > > > > Taking a step back: is Bitcoin's welfare maximized by permitting LLM > glurge submissions in standards documents? In some cases it's benign, I > readily agree, in others its harmful. But the number of good submissions > that could be made would hardly be increased by LLMs (being limited by > expert proposers with good ideas) but the number of potential poor > submissions is increased astronomically. So I think it's pretty clearly = a > net harm to have text authored that way. > > > > I've never had an impression that drafting was at all a limiting step i= n > writing BIPs, though even to the extent that it has been at times it's > possible to use LLMs in a review capacity to make authorship much easier > ("What's missing / unclear?") without resorting to using it to author. > > > > There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools > that users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM a= re > generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even > sometimes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only > benign to use in the hands of those whose need is the least. > > > > And as a reviewer outside of Bitcoin I've found LLM powered proposers t= o > be absolutely the worst to deal with. Because they're not submitting thei= r > 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 > to generate more text they also tend to flood you out with documents > several times longer than any human author would have bothered with. > > > > 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 > worthless material. Many projects, including, Bitcoin have long struggle= d > with review capacity being limited and a far amount of time waste by > thoughtless (or even crazy!) submissions, but now it's automated and even > the most well meaning person may now make submissions that are as bad as > the most deviously constructed malicious submissions could have been in t= he > past, not even know they are doing it, and can make a dozen proposals > before lunch without even breaking a sweat. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > I strongly disagree with this change. If I were to begin working on a > > new BIP today, I would use AI throughout the process. I'd ask it to > > help me create a todo list of what should go in the BIP; I'd ask it to > > create a draft based on existing BIPs, my todo list, and whatever other > > work products I had (e.g. prototypes); I'd then ask it to help me refin= e > > the document until I was satisfied. > > > > I would, of course, review every word of the draft BIP before submittin= g > > it for consideration and ensure that it represented the highest quality > > work I was able to produce---but the ultimate work would be a mix of AI > > and human writing and editing. > > > > I think considerate use of AI would be even more valuable for people wh= o > > are less comfortable with writing technical English-language documents > > than I am. For example, non-native literates, people with disabilities > > that make text input difficulty, and those who recognize that they're > > bad writers. > > > > The PR forbidding AI doesn't go into any detail about its motivation, > > although it references a previous discussion[1] where a low-quality BIP > > PR was opened using mostly AI-generated content. I'm guessing the > > motivation is that AI (by itself) generates low-quality technical > > content, BIPs should be high-quality technical content, and therefore w= e > > should ban the use of AI. > > > > However, as mentioned in the previous discussion, the BIP process > > already requires high-quality content.[2] AI-generated content can be > > high-quality, especially if its creation and editing was guided by a > > knowledgeable human. Banning specific tools like AI seems redundant an= d > > penalizes people who either need those tools or who can use them > > effectively. > > > > I advocate for reverting the first hunk of BIPs repository PR 2006. > > > > -Dave > > > > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2005 > > [2] "After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it is of > > **high quality** and properly formatted, the authors should open a pull > > request to the BIPs repository." --BIP3, emphasis added > > > > -- > > 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/bitcoindev/3a66dbbe9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1= cc91%40dtrt.org > . > > > > -- > > 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/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRV1aZ9xvAhBriZ%3DXdmY= f5CvrvXWXsjVD07uynivW_qkg%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > -- > > 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/bitcoindev/012c719c-0f56-474d-8851-a2db= 3a0b422cn%40googlegroups.com > . > > > > -- > > 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/bitcoindev/CAOCjZ9TLtsyjXTdonWK-zUj-V%3= DHtFnDeb92D_W%2BVPV6TCg%3Donw%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > -- > > 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/27b2b0ba-ba85-41f5-96b8-cf3f= bbe5fafdn%40googlegroups.com > . > > -- > 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/0B127C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE= 3CD42F42%40sprovoost.nl > . > --=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/= CALiT-ZpHpxC7vqUvK%2BQ%3DD49jsmcygGsz1NG_DTf%2BG8YEaWi64Q%40mail.gmail.com. --0000000000000c09070644352099 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BIPs are just documents that can be maintained in any repo= sitory. Nobody cares whether the document was assigned a number by the gate= keepers or if AI was used to improve the grammar, content etc.

/dev/= fd0
floppy disk guy=C2=A0

On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 2= :08=E2=80=AFAM Sjors Provoost <sjo= rs@sprovoost.nl> wrote:
Why not have a simple rule which states that "low effor= t contributions, such as fully LLM generated proposals, may be ignored with= out 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 overzealo= us. If an author believes their proposal was unfairly closed they can demon= strate their effort, e.g. link to a conference talk about the topic, have s= omeone vouch that they had conversations about the proposal, etc. All that = takes is some effort :-)

I don't think copyright should be a concern. If someone sends a takedow= n notice for a particular BIP, just take it down, and then either start a l= egal fight or rewrite it in different words. We're not talking about pa= tents here.

Greg Maxwell wrote:

> There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools = that users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are= generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even somet= imes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only benig= n to use in the hands of those whose need is the least.=C2=A0

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= alert to this. It can often be fixed by asking the author why a paragraph = is so verbose. Implementing a BIP in code should also help get rid of any s= uperfluous or incorrect paragraphs. So I would expect that actually importa= nt and widely used BIPs become well polished, even if they didn't start= out great. Unused BIPs will be lower quality, but nobody cares.

- Sjors

> Op 22 nov 2025, om 16:14 heeft Jon Atack <jonnyatack@gmail.com> het volgende = geschreven:
>
> The fundamental problem at this time is that prospective authors want = to use LLMs to create content, but it puts maintainers who handle the submi= ssions and the few experienced reviewers available to review the submission= s at an asymmetric disadvantage... until or unless AI can analyze and auto-= close those submissions relatively reliably and fairly. Even with AI toolin= g to help, who wants to spend their time reviewing LLM content or trying to= detect confident AI hallucinations?
>
> Therefore, human heuristics like social capital, proof of work, and pe= rsonal referrals/recommendations to review are therefore likely to become e= ven more important. Maybe this should this be expressed in BIP 3 to set exp= ectations.
>
> We have seen a wave of BIP draft PRs opened by new GitHub accounts wit= h no history or proof of work and often appearing to be LLM-generated. It m= ay 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 = open-yet-ignored PRs probably isn't a desirable option.
>
> On Friday, November 21, 2025 at 5:25:48=E2=80=AFPM UTC-6 Greg Maxwell = wrote:
> Because if you don't you'll eventually get figured out and peo= ple will ignore all your further submissions--- in fact, that will *already= * happen, which is part of why the guidance is useful.=C2=A0 No one is obli= gated to even read any of these submissions and if indeed there are many lo= w quality AI powered ones in the future (as we've been starting to see = now) then many won't be read.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:47=E2=80=AFAM Oghenovo Usiwoma <eun...@gmail.com> wro= te:
> > I think it makes sense to request that submissions should state i= f - and to what degree - AI has been used. It's reasonable to expect fe= wer eyeballs on AI generated submissions as they're so easily generated= and their potential for wasting reviewer time is high.
>
> In my humble opinion, I believe that humans will continue to use the e= asiest method available to them to achieve their goals. If we agree that hu= mans will do this, then there will be a lot of AI-assited content. If I did= write an AI-assited BIP draft, why would I add this "AI-label" t= o my BIP when I know that it will cause reviewers to ignore it?
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:18=E2=80=AFAM Bitcoin Mechanic <bitcoin...@ocean.xyz= > wrote:
> I think it makes sense to request that submissions should state if - a= nd to what degree - AI has been used. It's reasonable to expect fewer e= yeballs on AI generated submissions as they're so easily generated and = their potential for wasting reviewer time is high.
>
> If people are submitting AI generated code and lying about it than tha= t obviously undermines what it is they're proposing so they're natu= rally disincentivized to do so, thus the honour system should be relatively= effective.
>
> I think most people have begun using it for making outlines and tweaki= ng from there. The time saved is too significant for many to resist, and de= claring that it was used for an initial outline shouldn't be too dissua= sive for any reviewers.
>
> The deeper discussion around legal implications and generally about AI= code quality is not resolvable here, it's a massive topic with deep ph= ilosophical implications that go way outside the scope of BIP 3 imo.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 2:40:55=E2=80=AFPM UTC-8 Bitcoin Er= ror Log wrote:
> A few years ago, I had this idea that bitcoin divisibility needed to b= e fixed as a misconception. I put it (proto-bip177) in our bitcoin wallet a= pp, promoted the idea where I could. It worked great, but only our users kn= ew.
>
> And then AI became good enough to use for some things. AI has been a H= UGE unlock for me and my learning and creating style. Early this year, I to= ld my AI, filled with context about the upcoming BIP3 standard, and example= s of related BIPs, to make a BIP for me that properly expressed all of the = nuances of my idea on how to handle removal of decimals in a UX.
>
> It looked pretty good, but AI wasn't as good as it is today, and t= he formatting was total slop. Thankfully, most of the BIP reviewers are act= ually amazing people, and I was able to contact them directly and ask for h= elp, because I'm not an actual developer (yet). After some private help= , it was good enough for the mailing list, and a real draft.
>
> BIP 177 is a very simple BIP compared to most, and I'd probably ma= ke it better if I started today, but ... it exists! It might be the first/o= nly (?) vibe-BIP, and, as of last week, due to Cashapp and Square support, = it's possible that BIP 177 is now in more people's hands than not. =
>
> 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= newer BIPs are increasingly technical, and I have also started vibe-coding= implementations to test them, and I continue growing into an engineer. >
> Now the BIP repo is my favorite part of Bitcoin and interacting with B= itcoin Core. I feel sincere gratitude to three BIP reviewers specifically f= or humoring my sincere, yet not matured, effort and desire to improve Bitco= in without changing consensus code.
>
> My vision for the BIP repo and reviewers, and AI, is much different th= an yours. It is part of the story that brought me closer to Bitcoin develop= ment, and deep respect to my superiors for tolerating me while I was/am fle= dgling.
>
> Please don't add more weird subjective, exclusive barriers just be= cause AI is warping reality. Deal with it, and please, please, continue mak= ing an effort to not only guard the BIP repo, but ensure it remains a ferti= le ground where Bitcoin Core maintains an attitude of being great stewards = to the people, not only the specs.
>
> After all, we will need people to replace you some day, and those peop= le need role models too.
>
> ~John Carvalho
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 1:18=E2=80=AFAM Greg Maxwell <gmax...@gmail.com> wrote:<= br> > No doubt *you* are able to make good documents with or without the aid= of AI.
>
> With outright AI 'authorship' you immediately run into potenti= al copyright issues-- which I think is the origin of the "generated by= " prohibition, otherwise I think disclosure would be sufficient.
>
> Taking a step back: is Bitcoin's welfare maximized by permitting L= LM glurge submissions in standards documents? In some cases it's benign= , I readily agree, in others its harmful.=C2=A0 But the number of good subm= issions that could be made would hardly be increased by LLMs (being limited= by expert proposers with good ideas) but the number of potential poor subm= issions is increased astronomically.=C2=A0 So I think it's pretty clear= ly a net harm to have text authored that way.
>
> I've never had an impression that drafting was at all a limiting s= tep in writing BIPs, though even to the extent that it has been at times it= 's possible to use LLMs in a review capacity to make authorship much ea= sier ("What's missing / unclear?") without resorting to using= it to author.
>
> There is a particularly clear pattern at least with current LLM tools = that users who lack the skills to have authored the work without an LLM are= generally unable to recognize when the LLM is full of crap (and even somet= imes when they should know better), so unfortunately they're only benig= n to use in the hands of those whose need is the least.=C2=A0
>
> And as a reviewer outside of Bitcoin I've found LLM powered propos= ers to be absolutely the worst to deal with. Because they're not submit= ting their own words and ideas, they're unable to change their thinking= in response or explain sufficiently to change yours--- the interactions of= ten degrade to them just copy and pasting their chatbot back to you.=C2=A0 = Because it's cheap to generate more text they also tend to flood you ou= t with documents several times longer than any human author would have both= ered with.
>
> 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 = worthless material.=C2=A0 Many projects, including, Bitcoin have long strug= gled with review capacity being limited and a far amount of time waste by t= houghtless (or even crazy!) submissions, but now it's automated and eve= n the most well meaning person may now make submissions that are as bad as = the most deviously constructed malicious submissions could have been in the= past, not even know they are doing it, and can make a dozen proposals befo= re lunch without even breaking a sweat.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:06=E2=80=AFAM David A. Harding <da...@dtrt.org> wrote:<= br> > On 2025-11-04 15:10, Murch wrote:
> > Summary of changes since BIP=E2=80=AF3 was advanced to Proposed:<= br> > > [...]
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LL= M=E2=81=B5
> > [...]
> > =E2=81=B5 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/20= 06
>
> I strongly disagree with this change.=C2=A0 If I were to begin working= on a
> new BIP today, I would use AI throughout the process.=C2=A0 I'd as= k it to
> help me create a todo list of what should go in the BIP; I'd ask i= t to
> create a draft based on existing BIPs, my todo list, and whatever othe= r
> work products I had (e.g. prototypes); I'd then ask it to help me = refine
> the document until I was satisfied.
>
> I would, of course, review every word of the draft BIP before submitti= ng
> it for consideration and ensure that it represented the highest qualit= y
> work I was able to produce---but the ultimate work would be a mix of A= I
> and human writing and editing.
>
> I think considerate use of AI would be even more valuable for people w= ho
> are less comfortable with writing technical English-language documents=
> than I am.=C2=A0 For example, non-native literates, people with disabi= lities
> that make text input difficulty, and those who recognize that they'= ;re
> bad writers.
>
> The PR forbidding AI doesn't go into any detail about its motivati= on,
> although it references a previous discussion[1] where a low-quality BI= P
> PR was opened using mostly AI-generated content.=C2=A0 I'm guessin= g the
> motivation is that AI (by itself) generates low-quality technical
> content, BIPs should be high-quality technical content, and therefore = we
> should ban the use of AI.
>
> However, as mentioned in the previous discussion, the BIP process
> already requires high-quality content.[2]=C2=A0 AI-generated content c= an be
> high-quality, especially if its creation and editing was guided by a <= br> > knowledgeable human.=C2=A0 Banning specific tools like AI seems redund= ant and
> penalizes people who either need those tools or who can use them
> effectively.
>
> I advocate for reverting the first hunk of BIPs repository PR 2006. >
> -Dave
>
> [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2005
> [2] "After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it= is of
> **high quality** and properly formatted, the authors should open a pul= l
> request to the BIPs repository." --BIP3, emphasis added
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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/bitcoindev/3a66dbb= e9a9c46566c8a9a16ccb1cc91%40dtrt.org.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRV1aZ9xvAhBriZ%3DXdmYf5CvrvXWXsjVD07uynivW_qkg%4= 0mail.gmail.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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/bitco= indev/012c719c-0f56-474d-8851-a2db3a0b422cn%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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/bitcoindev/CAOCjZ9TLtsyjXTdonWK-zUj-V%3DHtFnDeb92D_W%2BVPV6TCg= %3Donw%40mail.gmail.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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/bitco= indev/27b2b0ba-ba85-41f5-96b8-cf3fbbe5fafdn%40googlegroups.com.

--
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/0B12= 7C48-9B11-4AAA-9F3E-B9BE3CD42F42%40sprovoost.nl.

--
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.co= m/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CALiT-ZpHpxC7vqUvK%2BQ%3DD49jsmcygGsz1NG_DTf%2BG8YEaWi= 64Q%40mail.gmail.com.
--0000000000000c09070644352099--