Follow-up regarding Motion to Activate BIP 3
9 messages, 7 to 14 Jan 2026. Started by Murch.
Murch (3), Chris Stewart, Coperbyte Solutions, Jonas Nick, Ruben Somsen, Bryan Bishop, Tim Ruffing
Dear colleagues,
In early November, I asked whether there was support for adopting BIP 3 as the guideline for the BIPs Process.
In response, about a dozen respondents stated support for activating BIP 3. Some respondents raised concerns that resulted in changes to the BIP or otherwise were addressed here on the mailing list. The adopted changes were summarized here on the mailing list (see https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/j4_toD-ofEc/m/esV-XScYAAAJ). A few respondents seemed to imply general support, but requested reversal of the recently introduced LLM-policy, which has since been implemented. As there was no further follow-up to raised concerns in over three weeks, I posit that the concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.
In detail, Ava Chow, David Gumberg, Jon Atack, Jonas Nick, Gloria Zhao, Michael Ford, Ruben Somsen, Greg Sanders, and Antoine Poinsot explicitly stated support for activating BIP 3 before the amendment. Pieter Wuille supported activation conditional on the reversal of the LLM-guidance. Concerns by David Harding, Luke Dashjr, and Melvin Carvalho have been addressed. The amended proposal has been explicitly endorsed (again) by AJ Towns, Tim Ruffing, and Pol Espinasa after the December 15th update.
It is my perception that among those that commented, support for activation significantly outweighed rejection, and that all concerns have been addressed. As Melvin Carvalho pointed out, that I, as the Author of the proposal, should not be the one to assess whether BIP 3 has rough consensus. I therefore request that others, especially participants in the BIPs process, comment on whether they perceive there to be rough consensus for activating BIP 3.
Thanks, Murch
I think there is a rough consensus for BIP3.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 6:53 PM Murch <murch@murch•one> wrote:
Quoted text (45 lines)
> Dear colleagues, > > In early November, I asked whether there was support for adopting BIP 3 > as the guideline for the BIPs Process. > > In response, about a dozen respondents stated support for activating > BIP 3. Some respondents raised concerns that resulted in changes to the > BIP or otherwise were addressed here on the mailing list. The adopted > changes were summarized here on the mailing list (see > https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/j4_toD-ofEc/m/esV-XScYAAAJ). A > few respondents seemed to imply general support, but requested reversal > of the recently introduced LLM-policy, which has since been implemented. > As there was no further follow-up to raised concerns in over three > weeks, I posit that the concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. > > In detail, Ava Chow, David Gumberg, Jon Atack, Jonas Nick, Gloria Zhao, > Michael Ford, Ruben Somsen, Greg Sanders, and Antoine Poinsot explicitly > stated support for activating BIP 3 before the amendment. > Pieter Wuille supported activation conditional on the reversal of the > LLM-guidance. > Concerns by David Harding, Luke Dashjr, and Melvin Carvalho have been > addressed. > The amended proposal has been explicitly endorsed (again) by AJ Towns, > Tim Ruffing, and Pol Espinasa after the December 15th update. > > It is my perception that among those that commented, support for > activation significantly outweighed rejection, and that all concerns > have been addressed. As Melvin Carvalho pointed out, that I, as the > Author of the proposal, should not be the one to assess whether BIP 3 > has rough consensus. I therefore request that others, especially > participants in the BIPs process, comment on whether they perceive there > to be rough consensus for activating BIP 3. > > Thanks, > Murch > > -- > 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/1d76a085-deff-4df2-8a82-f8bd984fac27%40murch.one > . >
Given the stated, we concur there is rough consensus for BIP3.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:53 PM Murch <murch@murch•one> wrote:
Quoted text (45 lines)
> Dear colleagues, > > In early November, I asked whether there was support for adopting BIP 3 > as the guideline for the BIPs Process. > > In response, about a dozen respondents stated support for activating > BIP 3. Some respondents raised concerns that resulted in changes to the > BIP or otherwise were addressed here on the mailing list. The adopted > changes were summarized here on the mailing list (see > https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/j4_toD-ofEc/m/esV-XScYAAAJ). A > few respondents seemed to imply general support, but requested reversal > of the recently introduced LLM-policy, which has since been implemented. > As there was no further follow-up to raised concerns in over three > weeks, I posit that the concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. > > In detail, Ava Chow, David Gumberg, Jon Atack, Jonas Nick, Gloria Zhao, > Michael Ford, Ruben Somsen, Greg Sanders, and Antoine Poinsot explicitly > stated support for activating BIP 3 before the amendment. > Pieter Wuille supported activation conditional on the reversal of the > LLM-guidance. > Concerns by David Harding, Luke Dashjr, and Melvin Carvalho have been > addressed. > The amended proposal has been explicitly endorsed (again) by AJ Towns, > Tim Ruffing, and Pol Espinasa after the December 15th update. > > It is my perception that among those that commented, support for > activation significantly outweighed rejection, and that all concerns > have been addressed. As Melvin Carvalho pointed out, that I, as the > Author of the proposal, should not be the one to assess whether BIP 3 > has rough consensus. I therefore request that others, especially > participants in the BIPs process, comment on whether they perceive there > to be rough consensus for activating BIP 3. > > Thanks, > Murch > > -- > 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/1d76a085-deff-4df2-8a82-f8bd984fac27%40murch.one > . >
No objections have been raised since Nov 29, and all objections were responded to on the mailing list on Dec 2 and addressed in the BIP on Dec 16. The latest version of the activation PR [0] has received multiple ACKs.
Therefore, I see rough consensus and BIP 3 should activate. The current uncertainty is adding friction to the BIP process.
[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820
Thanks Jonas, Chris, and Coperbyte Solutions for weighing in.
I rebased the Activation PR today so that it applies the process changes also to the recently published BIP 433. The Activation PR is now again (from a technical point of view) ready for merge.
Best, Murch
On 2026-01-12 04:35, Jonas Nick wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)
> No objections have been raised since Nov 29, and all objections were > responded > to on the mailing list on Dec 2 and addressed in the BIP on Dec 16. The > latest > version of the activation PR [0] has received multiple ACKs. > > Therefore, I see rough consensus and BIP 3 should activate. The current > uncertainty is adding friction to the BIP process. > > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820
My opinion has not changed since my last review - it's a clear step up from BIP2 and it's ready for adoption.
The BIP is significantly polished, and enough time has passed for objections to be voiced. Activation has my full support.
Cheers, Ruben
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 2:21 AM Murch <murch@murch•one> wrote:
Quoted text (30 lines)
> Thanks Jonas, Chris, and Coperbyte Solutions for weighing in. > > I rebased the Activation PR today so that it applies the process changes > also to the recently published BIP 433. The Activation PR is now again > (from a technical point of view) ready for merge. > > Best, > Murch > > On 2026-01-12 04:35, Jonas Nick wrote: > > No objections have been raised since Nov 29, and all objections were > > responded > > to on the mailing list on Dec 2 and addressed in the BIP on Dec 16. The > > latest > > version of the activation PR [0] has received multiple ACKs. > > > > Therefore, I see rough consensus and BIP 3 should activate. The current > > uncertainty is adding friction to the BIP process. > > > > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820 > > -- > 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/a71add89-53ff-4486-9ed9-7cbd1db8ab58%40murch.one > . >
I agree that it's ready.
- Bryan https://x.com/kanzure
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 6:07 PM Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (51 lines)
> My opinion has not changed since my last review - it's a clear step up > from BIP2 and it's ready for adoption. > > The BIP is significantly polished, and enough time has passed for > objections to be voiced. Activation has my full support. > > Cheers, > Ruben > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 2:21 AM Murch <murch@murch•one> wrote: > >> Thanks Jonas, Chris, and Coperbyte Solutions for weighing in. >> >> I rebased the Activation PR today so that it applies the process changes >> also to the recently published BIP 433. The Activation PR is now again >> (from a technical point of view) ready for merge. >> >> Best, >> Murch >> >> On 2026-01-12 04:35, Jonas Nick wrote: >> > No objections have been raised since Nov 29, and all objections were >> > responded >> > to on the mailing list on Dec 2 and addressed in the BIP on Dec 16. The >> > latest >> > version of the activation PR [0] has received multiple ACKs. >> > >> > Therefore, I see rough consensus and BIP 3 should activate. The current >> > uncertainty is adding friction to the BIP process. >> > >> > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820 >> >> -- >> 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/a71add89-53ff-4486-9ed9-7cbd1db8ab58%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/CAPv7TjZjhG4UiG6U1-ktSAFYjwQ4zwyCAws5QqCzz1%3DtGujN1w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAPv7TjZjhG4UiG6U1-ktSAFYjwQ4zwyCAws5QqCzz1%3DtGujN1w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . >
I perceive that there is rough consensus for activating BIP 3.
On Tue, 2026-01-06 at 16:42 -0800, Murch wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> I therefore request that others, especially > participants in the BIPs process, comment on whether they perceive > there > to be rough consensus for activating BIP 3. >
Hi everyone,
After a number of people stated in the past few days here and in the Activation pull request that they perceived BIP 3 to have achieved rough consensus, BIP 3 was deployed this morning. This sunset BIP 2: future submissions to the BIPs repository will be guided by BIP 3.
Thank you for your input and support!
Murch
On 2026-01-14 00:27, Tim Ruffing wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> I perceive that there is rough consensus for activating BIP 3. > > On Tue, 2026-01-06 at 16:42 -0800, Murch wrote: >> I therefore request that others, especially >> participants in the BIPs process, comment on whether they perceive >> there >> to be rough consensus for activating BIP 3. >>