Bitcoin BIP Editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt called for Luke Dashjr’s removal from the editorial team on Aug. 9, escalating a dispute over Dashjr’s handling of BIP110 and the proposal’s recent chain split.
Murch posted the motion to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List and then opened GitHub pull request 2248 as a proposed implementation.
Dashjr rejected the allegations less than an hour after Murch’s mailing list post. As of Aug. 10, the removal PR remained open, while the current BIP3 document continued to list Dashjr alongside five other BIP Editors. No removal has taken place.
Murch ties the removal motion to BIP110’s editorial process
Murch alleged that Dashjr exercised his editorial authority inconsistently while being closely involved with BIP110. He cited an attempt to assign the proposal a BIP number publicly before mailing list discussion and a later merge completed within minutes of a related pull request opening. Murch also claimed Dashjr produced fewer than 1% of BIP Editor comments after additional editors began serving in April 2024.
Since it will likely land here on Twitter soon anyway:
I have recommended the removal of Luke Dashjr from the BIP Editors to the mailing list. pic.twitter.com/95TfZoccIN— Murch (@murchandamus) August 9, 2026
The current BIP3 process says authors should present an idea and draft to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List before formal submission. Editors then check that the proposal received prior discussion, assign a BIP number in the pull request and merge it when ready. The document describes the position as administrative and editorial and says editors do not decide whether a proposal is likely to gain adoption.
Murch also alleged that communication between Dashjr and the other editors had broken down. He framed the matter as a conflict between Dashjr’s editorial responsibilities and his involvement in advancing BIP110. Those are Murch’s allegations, rather than findings from a formal Bitcoin governing body.
Dashjr denies claims as contributors debate removal
Dashjr disputed Murch’s account. “These are false accusations,” he wrote, adding that he had consistently followed the BIP process. Dashjr also challenged Murch’s account of their communication breakdown and argued that Murch should instead lose his editor position.
Other contributors backed the removal request. Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo supported removing Dashjr, while fellow BIP Editor Olaoluwa Osuntokun formally seconded Murch’s motion. Osuntokun said his support centered on what he viewed as bypassing editorial procedures rather than punishing a developer for advocating a controversial proposal.
However, the discussion also exposed a procedural gap. Jameson Lopp said there was no formal governance structure covering management of BIP Editors. Antoine Riard supported Dashjr stepping aside, potentially temporarily, but argued that contributors should allow time for a public response and establish clearer procedures before resolving the dispute.
BIP110 chain split adds pressure to the editor dispute
The dispute follows BIP110 entering mandatory signaling at block 961,632 on Aug. 8. Only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks, or 2.53%, had signaled support. As crypto.news reported in coverage of the mandatory signaling split, enforcing nodes created a minority branch that produced two blocks before stalling.
A later snapshot covered in the branch’s widening gap showed the dominant Bitcoin chain 111 blocks ahead, with no BIP110 signals among its first 113 blocks of the new difficulty period. BIP110 itself is a temporary consensus proposal intended to restrict certain forms of arbitrary transaction data.
Murch said the project “appears to evolve into a hard fork,” but that description should not be treated as a confirmed next step. Experimental proof of work change code exists, but its maintainer Chris Guida has described it as contingency code and said no activation date has been set. Earlier coverage of Dashjr’s backing also documented his support for the proposal amid opposition from other Bitcoin participants.
What happens next for Dashjr and BIP110
The immediate issue is pull request 2248. It remains open and currently proposes removing Dashjr from BIP3’s list of editors. BIP3 still names six editors, including Dashjr, and describes the BIPs repository as a publication and archive rather than a governing body that decides Bitcoin development or adoption.
A second open proposal is addressing BIP110 itself. Pull request 2245 seeks to change its status from Complete through Deployed to Closed following the stalled activation attempt. The discussion remains unresolved, and the live BIP110 specification still labels the proposal Complete.
The two open requests now leave Bitcoin contributors with separate questions: whether BIP110 should be formally closed and whether Dashjr should retain editorial access. There is currently no published deadline for resolving the removal motion, and the mailing list discussion has not produced a formal decision.
