Skip to content

BIP2:Clarify mailing list expectations in BIP process #2049

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

Closed
cal-gooo wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

BIP2:Clarify mailing list expectations in BIP process #2049

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
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion bip-0002.mediawiki
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have
Small enhancements or patches to a particular piece of software often don't require standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant project-specific development workflow with a patch submission to the applicable issue tracker.
Additionally, many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons.
The first step should be to search past discussions to see if an idea has been considered before, and if so, what issues arose in its progression.
After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list].
After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list]. Because the list is highly moderated, there is no guarantee the idea will be posted or discussed; treat this as a best-effort step rather than a blocker for the next steps.
Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list]. Because the list is highly moderated, there is no guarantee the idea will be posted or discussed; treat this as a best-effort step rather than a blocker for the next steps.
After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev Bitcoin development mailing list]. The list is moderated; non-publication should be seen as feedback to improve the proposal, and not to prematurely open a PR in the BIPs repository.

Copy link
Author

@cal-gooo cal-gooo Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the idea is not getting published, then how could the author receive any feedback at all?

Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the idea is not getting published, then how could the author receive any feedback at all?

  • if both the mail list and delving won't publish the submission, it's feedback that it is low quality (seen as noise or spam rather than signal); note also that moderation is expensive of terms of contributors' time that one is asking for
  • review is in any case possible on the author's GitHub repository, which can be mentioned on social media
  • review by experienced contributors isn't a right and generally is earned by showing human proof of work over time (reviewing others' work, making good contributions, etc.)

Copy link
Author

@cal-gooo cal-gooo Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

review is in any case possible on the author's GitHub repository, which can be mentioned on social media

One clarification: if a proposal gains traction and thoughtful discussion on social media or other public venues, does that count in BIP editor's view as a legitimate signal of interest or merit(If yes we should clearly mention it in the BIP)? Or is the mailing list still considered the only acceptable path for an idea to be recognized as worth discussing?

I’m asking because if the list blocks a substantive proposal, but the broader community engages with it elsewhere, it seems important to understand whether that external engagement is considered meaningful or simply disregarded.

The goal isn’t to burden moderators or force publication of junk. It’s to avoid a situation where moderation decisions—intentional or not—determine which technical proposals are allowed to enter public discussion. Ideas need some visible path to review that doesn’t depend on mailing list approval. The-Cat is a great example of this.

Copy link

@ostromcode ostromcode Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think there are real concerns with this assumption. You're trusting that the ML moderators are not politically motivated. For example, there is currently a debate regarding spam on the network. Proposals making suggestions to deal with spam are being rejected without comment with seemingly no regard for the quality of the suggestion, while low effort messages that clearly are not technical at all like the one saying "op_return spam is irrelevant" were approved. You're being too trusting. Clear rules are needed at the very least.

Full disclosure: I'm currently being censored from the ML with a proposal I'm working on and rejected from submitting a PR for not discussing it on the ML.


Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time.
Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick).
Expand Down