A new dispute has erupted within the Bitcoin development community after Bitcoin BIP Editor Mark “Murch” Erhardt called for the removal of fellow editor Luke Dashjr from the BIP editorial team.
Murch submitted the proposal on August 9, arguing that Dashjr did not handle the controversial BIP110 proposal fairly and may have given it special treatment during the review process. He later opened a GitHub pull request to formally seek Dashjr’s removal.
Dashjr quickly rejected the accusations, calling them false and insisting that he followed the established BIP process at all times. As of August 10, no decision had been made, and Dashjr remains listed as one of Bitcoin’s six BIP Editors.
At the center of the controversy is BIP110, a proposal that aimed to limit non-payment data stored on the Bitcoin blockchain. The proposal recently triggered a small chain split after entering its mandatory signaling phase, but the branch supporting BIP110 stalled after producing only two blocks while the main Bitcoin network continued operating normally.
Murch argues that Dashjr’s close involvement with BIP110 created a conflict between his role as an editor and his role as a supporter of the proposal. He also claimed that Dashjr handled parts of the process differently than expected under Bitcoin’s established guidelines.
According to Bitcoin’s BIP process, new proposals are supposed to be discussed publicly before receiving a BIP number and moving through the review process. Editors are expected to manage documentation and procedures rather than influence whether a proposal succeeds or fails.
Several well-known Bitcoin contributors have supported Murch’s request. Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo backed Dashjr’s removal, while fellow BIP Editor Olaoluwa Osuntokun formally supported the motion, saying the issue was about following proper procedures rather than punishing someone for supporting a controversial idea.
However, not everyone agrees on how to proceed. Some contributors pointed out that Bitcoin has no clear governance process for removing BIP Editors. Others suggested creating formal rules first before taking action against Dashjr.
The debate has highlighted a larger issue within Bitcoin’s development process: while editors play an important role in managing proposals, there are few written procedures for resolving disputes involving the editors themselves.
Meanwhile, BIP110 continues to face challenges. Support for the proposal remained extremely low among miners, and the branch created by its activation attempt has effectively stopped progressing. Another open proposal is now seeking to officially change BIP110’s status and close it following the failed activation effort.
For now, two separate questions remain unanswered. The first is whether BIP110 should be formally closed. The second is whether Luke Dashjr should remain a Bitcoin BIP Editor.
No deadline has been announced for either decision, and discussions among Bitcoin developers are still ongoing.
