* [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
@ 2025-11-05 1:10 Murch
2025-11-05 1:53 ` Ruben Somsen
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Murch @ 2025-11-05 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoindev
Dear list,
After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced to
Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our BIPs
Process.
Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
- The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
- 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 file²
- The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
- The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
- the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
- that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
mailing list⁴
- the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
proposals⁴
- when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
- that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
⁵ 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/205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b%40murch.one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 Murch
@ 2025-11-05 1:53 ` Ruben Somsen
2025-11-12 19:03 ` [bitcoindev] " Greg Sanders
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ruben Somsen @ 2025-11-05 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murch; +Cc: bitcoindev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3919 bytes --]
Murch, you did an excellent job writing this and taking everyone's feedback
into account. I think it's a crystal clear step up and should be adopted.
Thanks for all the hard work.
Cheers,
Ruben
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 2:11 AM Murch <murch@murch•one> wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ 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/205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b%40murch.one
> .
>
--
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/CAPv7TjYrLQ7__WBFMb5PB7mWCqbh-b8j6NedNL1e%3DjsG%3Da%2Bugg%40mail.gmail.com.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5635 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [bitcoindev] Re: Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 Murch
2025-11-05 1:53 ` Ruben Somsen
@ 2025-11-12 19:03 ` Greg Sanders
2025-11-13 0:23 ` Murch
[not found] ` <Qe_CRlsuwalN-0a0oo1KcZ265rXevTeHaTdk6IifH-j7NbLMew7-ucLLMiwECQLZEPoU2pm-PAuwb_lZAeCU9vChaVYTZzl60N9jyPTnUbo=@protonmail.com>
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Greg Sanders @ 2025-11-12 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3734 bytes --]
Hello Murch,
I really like the BIP, just have a question about the editor portion.
The list of current editors are currently in the BIP text, which seems to
imply that the list can be changed by the author himself only and would
become "static" over time.
Clearly support for changing has to continue as it goes to Deployed and
beyond. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere?
Best,
Greg
On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Murch wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ 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/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6671 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-12 19:03 ` [bitcoindev] " Greg Sanders
@ 2025-11-13 0:23 ` Murch
2025-11-13 18:54 ` Greg Sanders
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Murch @ 2025-11-13 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoindev
Hey Greg,
Two sections from BIP 3 stand out as relevant here, “BIP Ownership“ and
“Deployed Process BIPs”.
From “Fundamentals > BIP Ownership”:
> “[…] As a BIP progresses through the workflow, it becomes
increasingly co-owned by the Bitcoin community.”
While Deployed BIPs are considered final and changes should be avoided,
the section has a subsection that specifically addresses Process BIPs.
From “Workflow > Progression through BIP Statuses > Deployed > Process
BIPs”:
> “A Process BIP may change status from Complete to Deployed when it
achieves rough consensus on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List. A
proposal is said to have rough consensus if its advancement has been
open to discussion on the mailing list for at least one month, the
discussion achieved meaningful engagement, and no person maintains any
unaddressed substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive
objections may be ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have
been sufficiently addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such
circumstances. Deployed Process BIPs may be modified indefinitely as
long as a proposed modification has rough consensus per the same criteria.”
More specific rules supersede general rules, so this subsection on
Process BIPs should hopefully clearly override the general description
in “Deployed”. It follows from these two sections that the BIP Authors’
right to decide about changes to their BIP is moderated by the community
interests. I would consider especially Process BIPs to be dominantly
owned by the community rather than the Authors once they are Deployed.
The quoted section states how they are modified — by proposing and
discussing a modification on the mailing list, which is also a
fitting summary of how we decided last year to add more BIP Editors.
Additionally, the “Workflow > Transferring BIP Ownership” section makes
it clear that other Owners could step up to replace Authors that have
become unreachable.
Pragmatically speaking, it seems obvious that the list of BIP Editors
would be amended in the currently active BIP Process Specification
whenever the active BIP Editors change. Historically, this worked fine
when Editors changed while BIP 1 and BIP 2 were active which both also
specified the current BIP Editors in the same manner.
Thank you for your review. Please let me know, if you think we should
amend BIP 3 to more clearly state any of the above discussed thoughts.
Best,
Murch
On 2025-11-12 11:03, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Hello Murch,
>
> I really like the BIP, just have a question about the editor portion.
>
> The list of current editors are currently in the BIP text, which seems
> to imply that the list can be changed by the author himself only and
> would become "static" over time.
>
> Clearly support for changing has to continue as it goes to Deployed
> and beyond. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere?
>
> Best,
> Greg
>
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Murch wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was
> advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our
> BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been
> 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ 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/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/0ed80dd1-35ba-4f10-8aac-1069c6050380%40murch.one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-13 0:23 ` Murch
@ 2025-11-13 18:54 ` Greg Sanders
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Greg Sanders @ 2025-11-13 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7475 bytes --]
Makes sense to me, and this e-mail can be a reference point if there's
future discussion.
With what little review I've done, I think this makes sense to activate!
Greg
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 7:30:59 PM UTC-5 Murch wrote:
> Hey Greg,
>
> Two sections from BIP 3 stand out as relevant here, “BIP Ownership“ and
> “Deployed Process BIPs”.
>
> From “Fundamentals > BIP Ownership”:
> > “[…] As a BIP progresses through the workflow, it becomes
> increasingly co-owned by the Bitcoin community.”
>
> While Deployed BIPs are considered final and changes should be avoided,
> the section has a subsection that specifically addresses Process BIPs.
>
> From “Workflow > Progression through BIP Statuses > Deployed > Process
> BIPs”:
> > “A Process BIP may change status from Complete to Deployed when it
> achieves rough consensus on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List. A
> proposal is said to have rough consensus if its advancement has been
> open to discussion on the mailing list for at least one month, the
> discussion achieved meaningful engagement, and no person maintains any
> unaddressed substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive
> objections may be ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have
> been sufficiently addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such
> circumstances. Deployed Process BIPs may be modified indefinitely as
> long as a proposed modification has rough consensus per the same criteria.”
>
> More specific rules supersede general rules, so this subsection on
> Process BIPs should hopefully clearly override the general description
> in “Deployed”. It follows from these two sections that the BIP Authors’
> right to decide about changes to their BIP is moderated by the community
> interests. I would consider especially Process BIPs to be dominantly
> owned by the community rather than the Authors once they are Deployed.
> The quoted section states how they are modified — by proposing and
> discussing a modification on the mailing list, which is also a
> fitting summary of how we decided last year to add more BIP Editors.
>
> Additionally, the “Workflow > Transferring BIP Ownership” section makes
> it clear that other Owners could step up to replace Authors that have
> become unreachable.
>
> Pragmatically speaking, it seems obvious that the list of BIP Editors
> would be amended in the currently active BIP Process Specification
> whenever the active BIP Editors change. Historically, this worked fine
> when Editors changed while BIP 1 and BIP 2 were active which both also
> specified the current BIP Editors in the same manner.
>
> Thank you for your review. Please let me know, if you think we should
> amend BIP 3 to more clearly state any of the above discussed thoughts.
>
> Best,
> Murch
>
> On 2025-11-12 11:03, Greg Sanders wrote:
> > Hello Murch,
> >
> > I really like the BIP, just have a question about the editor portion.
> >
> > The list of current editors are currently in the BIP text, which seems
> > to imply that the list can be changed by the author himself only and
> > would become "static" over time.
> >
> > Clearly support for changing has to continue as it goes to Deployed
> > and beyond. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere?
> >
> > Best,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Murch wrote:
> >
> > Dear list,
> >
> > After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was
> > advanced to
> > Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> > since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> > that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
> >
> > At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our
> > BIPs
> > Process.
> >
> > Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been
> > 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
> >
> > - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> > - 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 file²
> > - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> > - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> > - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> > - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> > mailing list⁴
> > - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> > proposals⁴
> > - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> > - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
> >
> > ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> > ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> > ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> > ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> > ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> > ⁵ 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+...@googlegroups•com.
> > To view this discussion visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com
> > <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >.
>
--
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/899eb548-3e3b-4b85-8ae0-1e64d15f1b86n%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 11991 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
[not found] ` <Qe_CRlsuwalN-0a0oo1KcZ265rXevTeHaTdk6IifH-j7NbLMew7-ucLLMiwECQLZEPoU2pm-PAuwb_lZAeCU9vChaVYTZzl60N9jyPTnUbo=@protonmail.com>
@ 2025-11-13 19:35 ` 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List @ 2025-11-13 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List
Forwarding my reply to Murch on November 4th, which for some reason i did not also send to the list at the time.
------- Forwarded Message -------
From: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail•com>
Date: On Tuesday, November 4th, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
To: Murch <murch@murch•one>
>
>
> Murch,
>
> I am in favour of activating BIP 3. Your proposed timeline seems appropriate to me.
>
> Thanks for your sustained efforts in leading this forward.
>
> Best,
> Antoine Poinsot
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On Tuesday, 11/04/25 at 20:11 Murch murch@murch•one wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ 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/205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b%40murch.one.
--
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/DMVHnNhEbYjvd5J1XrUdVaal10POhNpOqGl1ZR3a3Eis1qnQblrYFdH1QhNTJ95dKFs9tcK-yOvbaMj12vwik5WYH0_W_1d9gdz77H-PFi8%3D%40protonmail.com.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 Murch
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
[not found] ` <Qe_CRlsuwalN-0a0oo1KcZ265rXevTeHaTdk6IifH-j7NbLMew7-ucLLMiwECQLZEPoU2pm-PAuwb_lZAeCU9vChaVYTZzl60N9jyPTnUbo=@protonmail.com>
@ 2025-11-13 21:43 ` Murch
2025-11-14 17:05 ` Melvin Carvalho
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Murch @ 2025-11-13 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoindev
Dear list,
I would like to correct a small lapse I made in my email from November
4th. I mistakenly thought that the activation process for Process BIPs
was newly introduced with BIP 3, but reading BIP 2 again today, I
realized that it had been adapted from BIP 2.
BIP 2 says:
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves
rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have
rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development
mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any
unaddressed substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive
objections may be ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have
been sufficiently addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such
circumstances.
Meaning, that I was incorrect when I stated that “BIP 2 doesn’t specify
a procedure for activating Process BIPs”. My apologies.
Either way, the previously proposed motion to activate complies with
BIP 2, so I don’t think there is a need to revise the approach.
Cheers,
Murch
On 2025-11-04 17:10, Murch wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced
> to Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our
> BIPs Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ 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/8aadd6bd-1cf4-4ba3-a1ab-f30ab06c89b9%40murch.one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 Murch
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2025-11-13 21:43 ` Murch
@ 2025-11-14 17:05 ` Melvin Carvalho
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Melvin Carvalho @ 2025-11-14 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Murch; +Cc: bitcoindev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7669 bytes --]
st 5. 11. 2025 v 2:11 odesílatel Murch <murch@murch•one> napsal:
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 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 3 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 3 to replace BIP 2 as our BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t 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 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been 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 3 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 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - 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 file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006
Hi all,
I'm writing in response to Murch's motion to activate BIP 3. I appreciate
both the extensive work that's gone into this proposal and the invitation
to raise concerns during this evaluation period.
Since BIP 3 cites RFC 7282 as its rough consensus framework, I reviewed it
with that standard in mind. BIP 3 modernizes many aspects of the process,
particularly the streamlined status flow and clearer role definitions, and
I appreciate these improvements. I've spent some time in IETF and W3C
processes over the years, including recommending RFC 7282 to this list
during the Taproot discussions, so some of the thoughts below reflect
lessons learned from those environments. That said, Bitcoin's governance
context is unique, and I may be missing important considerations.
*1. RFC 7282: visible objection handling*
RFC 7282 emphasizes that rough consensus is demonstrated by documenting
objections and how they were addressed. Process BIPs under BIP 3 can
self-modify without requiring such a log, which leaves ambiguity around how
consensus is determined. A short objections/resolution record, even as
simple as a changelog section noting “Objection raised by X regarding Y;
addressed by Z”, would address this and provide helpful context for future
readers.
*2. RFC 7282: neutral consensus evaluation*
RFC 7282 discourages authors from judging consensus on their own work.
Under BIP 3, a small editor group collectively evaluates numbering,
closure, "material progress," "lack of interest," and rough consensus
itself. This concentration of authority may create perceived conflicts of
interest, even with the best intentions.
A minimal safeguard would be requiring two non-author editors, ideally from
different implementation communities such as Core and Knots, to confirm
rough consensus for Process BIPs. This shares responsibility and provides
independent verification. For example, if a Process BIP proposes changing
the Draft-to-Complete threshold, this would ensure independent assessment.
*3. Subjectivity in number assignment*
Declining numbers due to "lack of interest" or "insufficient progress" is
reasonable in intent but subjective in effect. A brief explanation, even a
single sentence in the PR, would help newcomers understand expectations and
provide editors with a neutral reference point if a decision is later
questioned.
*4. Status compression and historical clarity*
Collapsing Rejected/Withdrawn/Obsolete into "Closed" simplifies the system
but loses useful distinctions that help readers understand why a proposal
didn't advance. Optional status annotations (e.g., "Closed (Withdrawn by
author)" or "Closed (Superseded by BIP X)") could preserve this context
without complicating the core status model.
*Lightweight adjustments for RFC alignment and neutrality*
-
Short objections/resolution log for Process BIPs (can be minimal
changelog format)
-
Neutral consensus verification by two non-author editors, preferably
cross-ecosystem
-
Brief explanations for number denials and "stalled" Draft BIPs
-
Optional annotations for Closed statuses to preserve historical context
These small additions strengthen neutrality and transparency. They also
help editors by distributing responsibility and making decisions easier to
defend through a clear paper trail. I recognize editors are volunteering
substantial time, and these mechanisms are intended to make the role more
sustainable, not more burdensome.
I may have overlooked important practical constraints or misunderstood
parts of the current process. I'd be interested to hear whether others see
value in these additions, have alternative approaches to strengthening
neutrality around Process BIPs, or believe the current design better serves
Bitcoin's governance needs.
Looking forward to the discussion.
Best,
Melvin
>
>
> --
> 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/205b3532-ccc1-4b2f-964f-264fc6e0e70b%40murch.one
> .
>
--
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/CAKaEYh%2BFHr8wQd41Hh0CW76F25Vuo0b7uQ1JE1TdEkisFGM9wg%40mail.gmail.com.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9789 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-14 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] Motion to Activate BIP 3 Murch
2025-11-05 1:53 ` Ruben Somsen
2025-11-12 19:03 ` [bitcoindev] " Greg Sanders
2025-11-13 0:23 ` Murch
2025-11-13 18:54 ` Greg Sanders
[not found] ` <Qe_CRlsuwalN-0a0oo1KcZ265rXevTeHaTdk6IifH-j7NbLMew7-ucLLMiwECQLZEPoU2pm-PAuwb_lZAeCU9vChaVYTZzl60N9jyPTnUbo=@protonmail.com>
2025-11-13 19:35 ` [bitcoindev] " 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-13 21:43 ` Murch
2025-11-14 17:05 ` Melvin Carvalho
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox