Skip to content

BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs #2006

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 22, 2025
Merged

BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs #2006

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions bip-0003.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,7 +37,10 @@ Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, inciden
the Bitcoin protocol, peer-to-peer network, and client software may be acceptable.

BIPs are intended to be a means for proposing new protocol features, coordinating client standards, and
documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.
documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. A BIP may be submitted by anyone,
provided it is the original work of its authors and the content is of high quality, e.g. does not waste
the community's time. No content may be generated by AI/LLMs and authors must proactively disclose
up-front any use of AI/LLMs.

The scope of the BIPs
repository is limited to BIPs that do not oppose the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -477,7 +480,7 @@ repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) where it may get further feedback.

For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following:

* The idea has been previously discussed on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List
* The idea has been previously proposed by one of the authors to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and discussed there
* The described idea is on-topic for the repository
* Title accurately describes the content
* Proposal is of general interest and/or pertains to more than one Bitcoin project/implementation
Expand All @@ -486,7 +489,7 @@ For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following:
* Motivation, Rationale, and Backward Compatibility have been addressed
* 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
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.


Editors do NOT evaluate whether the proposal is likely to be adopted.

Expand Down