BIP3: add guidance on originality, quality, LLMs

and soundness, and ensure it was proposed to the ML by one of the BIP authors

Author: jonatack

bip-0003.md

@@ -37,7 +37,10 @@ Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, inciden
 the Bitcoin protocol, peer-to-peer network, and client software may be acceptable.
 
 BIPs are intended to be a means for proposing new protocol features, coordinating client standards, and
-documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.
+documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. A BIP may be submitted by anyone,
+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 scope of the BIPs
 repository is limited to BIPs that do not oppose the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer
@@ -477,7 +480,7 @@ repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) where it may get further feedback.
 
 For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following:
 
-* The idea has been previously discussed on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List
+* The idea has been previously proposed by one of the authors to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and discussed there
 * The described idea is on-topic for the repository
 * Title accurately describes the content
 * Proposal is of general interest and/or pertains to more than one Bitcoin project/implementation
@@ -486,7 +489,7 @@ For each new BIP pull request that comes in, an editor checks the following:
 * Motivation, Rationale, and Backward Compatibility have been addressed
 * Specification provides sufficient detail for implementation
 * The defined Layer header must be correctly assigned for the given specification
-* The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible, and all aspects are addressed as necessary
+* The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible and sound, and all aspects are addressed as necessary
 
 Editors do NOT evaluate whether the proposal is likely to be adopted.