-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
Add BIPs project page #912
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.
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
Changes from 1 commit
41f2cc5
dca2974
4c61060
a27c8b5
a8e9125
c841feb
6a282e7
4dbd427
835ad30
1ecb139
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: 'Bitcoin Improvement Proposals' | ||
| dateAdded: '2026-08-08' | ||
| summary: "Bitcoin's public specification process and proposal archive." | ||
| nym: 'BIP Editors and Authors' | ||
| website: 'https://bips.dev/' | ||
| coverImage: '/static/images/projects/bips.svg' | ||
| containCoverImage: true | ||
| git: 'https://github.com/bitcoin/bips' | ||
| tags: ['Bitcoin', 'Protocol', 'Documentation'] | ||
| fund: general | ||
| announcementLink: '/blog/jon-atack-receives-lts-grant' | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) are the public specification process and | ||
| archive for Bitcoin. They give authors a structured way to document protocol | ||
| changes, peer-to-peer behavior, wallet standards, application conventions, and | ||
| process updates so implementers can review the same technical proposal from the | ||
| same source of truth. | ||
|
|
||
| The [BIPs repository][repo] is the canonical publication medium. It stores each | ||
| proposal as a versioned text file, tracks edits through Git history, and makes | ||
| the latest accepted draft easy to retrieve. The rendered [bips.dev][bips-dev] | ||
| site gives developers and reviewers a faster way to browse those specifications. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Why fund it? | ||
|
|
||
| Bitcoin development relies on written specifications when changes touch more | ||
| than one implementation, wallet, library, or user workflow. BIPs help turn | ||
| mailing list discussions and design sketches into stable documents that can be | ||
| reviewed, referenced, implemented, tested, and challenged over time. | ||
|
|
||
| That work is mostly coordination and maintenance. Authors have to define scope, | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Review, particularly of technical soundness and completeness, is the most time-consuming (and critical) aspect. It has become a larger part of the BIP maintainership process, as we receive more and more LLM-generated submissions that are now trivial for authors to make but don't always make technical or conceptual sense and that (too often) skip the required mail list discussion step. Also, moderation is an (annoying) aspect that can at times be time-consuming. Scope discussions can also be long. The Ordinals BIP draft, for instance. In summary, the role is called Editor, but in reality is maintainership, technical review, editor, scope and soundness guardian, and moderator.
dergigi marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| write clear specifications, address objections, record rationale, and revise the | ||
| proposal as review improves it. Editors keep the process moving by checking | ||
| format, scope, metadata, licensing, status, and publication criteria. | ||
|
dergigi marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
|
|
||
| OpenSats funds [Jon Atack][jon-announce], a Bitcoin Core contributor and BIP | ||
| editor, through the Long-Term Support program. His grant includes work on BIP | ||
| proposal review and maintenance, especially where proposals affect Bitcoin's | ||
| consensus rules, decentralization, security, robustness, privacy, or user | ||
| experience. | ||
|
|
||
| ## What's next? | ||
|
|
||
| The BIP process was refreshed by [BIP 3][bip-3], which replaced the older BIP 2 | ||
| process and clarified the role of BIP authors, deputies, editors, proposal | ||
| types, statuses, and publication criteria. | ||
|
dergigi marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
|
|
||
| The repository remains active because Bitcoin remains active. Current and future | ||
|
dergigi marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| work includes new consensus proposals, peer-service changes, wallet | ||
| interoperability standards, application-level conventions, and process | ||
| improvements. Keeping the archive readable, reviewable, and current gives the | ||
|
dergigi marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
|
||
| ecosystem a durable place to debate technical changes without tying publication | ||
| to adoption. | ||
|
|
||
| [bip-3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md | ||
| [bips-dev]: https://bips.dev/ | ||
| [jon-announce]: /blog/jon-atack-receives-lts-grant | ||
| [repo]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.