BIP3 revisions #2037
BIP3 revisions #2037
Conversation
…m to the ML themselves
…o assignment Based-on: aecb84f
| 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 community's time. No content may be generated by AI/LLMs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would prefer that authors be required to proactively disclose out of respect for the community's time (and that of the editors).
| ideation phase, e.g., by generating substantial public discussion and commentary from diverse contributors, by | ||
| independent Bitcoin projects working on adopting the proposal, or by the authors working for an extended period toward | ||
| improving the proposal based on community feedback, will be assigned a number by a BIP Editor. A number may be | ||
| ideation phase, will be assigned a number by a BIP Editor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noting here that I would like to think about this more. It seems to me that the bar for numbers might be too low and that standards on quality/proof of work, soundness, completeness, and originality may need reinforcing in light of the ease of lobbing LLM-generated slop or hallucinations over the fence at us.
| For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following: | ||
|
|
||
| * The idea has been previously proposed by one of the authors to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and discussed there | ||
| * The idea has been previously proposed to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and discussed there |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably best to keep this as-is to avoid other people sniping/jumping on an idea.
Further, not only "The idea" but also the proposed draft for review on the author's own repository.
We're seeing new, out-of-the-blue github accounts (often with no established record or proof of work in the space) opening a PR directly to the BIPs, skipping the steps, and then using the "fait accompli" to protest the PR being closed.
2 participants
This addresses several issues identified in my review of BIP 3. Other unaddressed issues are being posted to the mailing list for further discussion.