Bitcoin BIP Editor Dispute Escalates Over Luke Dashjr Removal

Bitcoin Core developer and BIP Editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt formally called for Luke Dashjr removal 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, and Dashjr still appears among six editors listed in the governing BIP3 document. No removal has taken place.

DISCOVER: The Next 1000x Crypto Gem Before It Lists on Binance

Murch’s Luke DashJR Allegations Center on Editorial Overreach

Murch alleges Dashjr exercised his editorial authority inconsistently while closely involved in advancing BIP110, a proposal aimed at restricting arbitrary transaction data.

He cited an attempt to assign BIP110 a formal number publicly before mailing list discussion concluded, and a merge of a related pull request completed within minutes of it opening.

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

Murch further claimed 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 among the editorial team.

These remain Murch’s allegations rather than findings from any formal Bitcoin governing body, since no such body exists for the BIP process.

DISCOVER: Best Meme Coin ICOs to Invest in 2026

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, and he argued Murch should instead lose his own editor position.

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

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 a controversial proposal.

Jameson Lopp noted there is no formal governance structure covering how BIP Editors are managed, while Antoine Riard suggested Dashjr step aside temporarily but argued contributors should first allow a public response and establish clearer removal procedures.

BIP110’s Stalled Fork Adds Pressure

The governance fight 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 isn’t 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.

EXCLUSIVE: Earn $10 USDC Via Binance Sign-Up