BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs #2006
Conversation
jonatack
added
Proposed BIP modification
Pending acceptance
| * Specification provides sufficient detail for implementation | ||
| * The defined Layer header must be correctly assigned for the given specification | ||
| * The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible, and all aspects are addressed as necessary | ||
| * The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible and sound, and all aspects are addressed as necessary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I‘m a little on the fence regarding back the "technical sound" criteria. I felt that it was pretty subjective and actually had removed it on purpose from BIP2 to BIP3, but in the end, we do want BIPs to be well-reasoned and designed which it expresses better than "feasible".
I’m still mulling this over, big fan of the rest of the amendments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My guess is that occasional subjective discretion will probably ~always be needed to avoid making BIP submissions overly game-able, and the criterion that BIPs be technically sound seems fundamental as a firewall (when needed).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, since I started writing BIP3, I have had to review my ambition to reduce judgment calls required from the BIP Editors.
Let’s add it.
and soundness, and ensure it was proposed to the ML by one of the BIP authors
jonatack
force-pushed
the
2025-10-bip3-adjustments
branch
from
16f2840 to
d083ce5
Compare
jonatack
removed
the
Pending acceptance
2 participants
and soundness, and ensure it was proposed to the ML by one of the BIP authors.
Follows up on the discussion starting from #2005 (comment).