Bitcoin Core developer and BIP Editor Mark "Murch" Erhardt formally called for the removal of Luke Dashjr from the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) editorial team on Aug. 9, escalating a dispute over Dashjr's handling of BIP110 and the proposal's recent chain split.

The motion, posted to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and backed by GitHub pull request 2248, remains open as of Aug. 10. Dashjr still appears among six editors listed in the governing BIP3 document, and no removal has taken place. BIP Editors serve an administrative function — numbering, formatting, and publishing proposals — rather than approving or rejecting them on technical merit. The role exists to maintain a shared record of proposed protocol and software changes for Bitcoin's globally distributed contributor base, which coordinates almost entirely through open mailing lists, GitHub repositories, and internet-relay chat without a central authority.

Murch's Allegations Center on Editorial Overreach

Murch alleges that Dashjr exercised his editorial authority inconsistently while closely involved in advancing BIP110, a proposal aimed at restricting arbitrary transaction data. Specifically, Murch cited Dashjr's attempt to assign BIP110 a formal number publicly before mailing list discussion had concluded, as well as the merge of a related pull request completed within minutes of its opening.

Murch further claimed that Dashjr produced fewer than 1% of BIP Editor comments after additional editors joined the process in April 2024, arguing this points to a breakdown in communication within the editorial team. These remain Murch's allegations rather than findings from any formal Bitcoin governing body, as no such body exists for the BIP process.

Dashjr responded on X (Twitter):

Since my reply will likely be censored (the mailing list is completely captured and corrupt), here it is: "These are false accusations. I have followed the BIP process consistently for years. Your novice opinions alone do not establish new processes. You are the one who…"

— Luke Dashjr (@LukeDashjr) August 9, 2026

https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2086537518502056148

Dashjr Denies Claims as Contributors Split

Luke Dashjr rejected the allegations within an hour of Murch's post. "These are false accusations," he wrote, adding that he had consistently followed established BIP procedures. He further argued that Murch should instead lose his own editor position.

The community response has been divided. Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo supported removing Dashjr, and fellow BIP Editor Olaoluwa Osuntokun formally seconded Murch's motion, framing his support around bypassed procedure rather than opposition to Dashjr's advocacy for the controversial proposal.

Jameson Lopp noted there is no formal governance structure covering how BIP Editors are managed. Antoine Riard suggested Dashjr step aside temporarily but argued contributors should first allow a public response and establish clearer removal procedures. The exchange highlights a long-standing tension in Bitcoin development: influence is earned through technical contribution and peer credibility, yet the project lacks binding procedures for adjudicating disputes among its most active maintainers.

BIP110's Stalled Fork Adds Pressure

The governance dispute follows BIP110 entering mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Aug. 8, with only 51 of the prior 2,016 blocks — 2.53% — signaling support. Enforcing nodes split off into a minority branch that produced two blocks before stalling, while the dominant chain pulled 111 blocks ahead with zero BIP110 signals among its first 113 blocks of the new difficulty period.

Murch described the situation as one that "appears to evolve into a hard fork," though that framing is not a confirmed next step. Experimental proof-of-work change code exists, but its maintainer, Chris Guida, has called it contingency code with no set activation date — a reminder that decisions inside Bitcoin's technical ecosystem can carry outsized weight even when they never reach mainnet.

Two GitHub pull requests now sit open in parallel: PR 2248 proposing Dashjr's removal from BIP3, and PR 2245 seeking to formally close BIP110 following its stalled activation. Neither has a published deadline, and the mailing list discussion has not produced a formal decision on either question. The outcomes of both PRs will likely set informal precedent for how future editorial and protocol disputes are resolved in a project with no formal arbitration mechanism.