By Bitcoin developer and BIP editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt has recommended removing Luke Dashjr from the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal editorial team, accusing the veteran developer of inconsistently exercising editorial authority in connection with the controversial BIP-110 soft fork.
Erhardt said on August 9 that he had submitted the recommendation to the Bitcoin development mailing list. His objections include Dashjr’s role in BIP-110, what he described as premature assignment of a BIP number, unusually rapid merging of subsequent changes and broader failures involving trust, communication and coordination among editors.
The dispute centers on the governance of the BIP repository, which serves as Bitcoin’s formal publication and archival system for technical proposals. Under the current process, editors evaluate whether submissions satisfy procedural criteria, assign proposal numbers and merge qualifying documents. Publication does not constitute endorsement or community approval.
BIP-110 proposed temporary consensus restrictions on several methods used to embed arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions. It became deeply contentious because supporters viewed the restrictions as a defense of Bitcoin’s monetary function, while opponents argued that fee-paying transactions should not be censored based on their purpose.
Editorial Neutrality Becomes Central Issue
Erhardt’s criticism focuses less on whether Dashjr was entitled to support BIP-110 than on whether his involvement was compatible with neutral administration of the BIP process.
Bitcoin’s repository explicitly says editors should be “liberal” in publishing qualifying proposals while avoiding excessive involvement in deciding their merits. It also states that acceptance and adoption ultimately rest with Bitcoin users rather than editors.
Erhardt, who authored the currently deployed BIP-3 process rules, reportedly argued that Dashjr’s treatment of BIP-110 contrasted with his relatively limited editorial activity in recent years. He also objected to Dashjr participating directly in a contentious consensus proposal while possessing repository privileges capable of influencing its publication and development.
Dashjr rejected the accusations. In a public response, he said he had consistently followed the BIP process and countered that Erhardt, rather than himself, had broken communication with other editors. He called the allegations false and argued that Erhardt should instead be removed.
BIP-110 Failure Intensifies Governance Fight
The confrontation comes immediately after BIP-110’s attempted activation failed to attract meaningful miner support. The proposal required a 55% signaling threshold for early activation and later introduced mandatory signaling. When the mandatory phase began at block 961,632, support remained around 2% to 3%. Nodes enforcing BIP-110 separated onto a minority chain that produced only two blocks while the dominant Bitcoin chain continued normally.
Some BIP-110 supporters, including Dashjr, have subsequently discussed whether the stalled minority chain could adopt a different proof-of-work algorithm. No such change has been approved or activated.
Erhardt’s removal recommendation does not itself dismiss Dashjr from the editorial team. Bitcoin has no corporate board or central authority capable of unilaterally settling the dispute, meaning any change will depend on repository maintainers and broader developer agreement.
The episode nevertheless raises a larger governance question. BIP editors do not determine Bitcoin’s consensus rules, but they occupy an influential procedural role in documenting proposals that may eventually alter them. The argument over Dashjr therefore tests where the community believes the boundary should lie between technical advocacy and neutral stewardship of Bitcoin’s proposal process.