BIP editor Murch seeks Dashjr removal after BIP-110 fails at 2.53%

Bitcoin BIP editor Murch recommended removing Luke Dashjr on Aug. 9 after BIP-110 collapsed with 2.53% miner support.

"I have recommended the removal of Luke Dashjr from the BIP Editors to the mailing list," Murch posted on X, citing Dashjr's handling of BIP-110, including premature assignment of a BIP number and unusually rapid merging of subsequent changes.

The proposal required 55% miner support for early activation. When the mandatory signaling phase began at block 961,632 on Aug. 8, only 51 of the previous 2,016 blocks — 2.53% — had signaled support. Enforcing nodes split onto a minority chain that produced two blocks before stalling, while the dominant Bitcoin chain continued normally.

The dispute tests where the community believes the boundary lies between technical advocacy and neutral stewardship of Bitcoin's proposal process. BIP3 lists six editors and provides no explicit mechanism for removing one, meaning any change depends on repository maintainers and broader developer consensus.

Editorial Neutrality at the Center of the Dispute

Murch'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.

Murch, who authored the currently deployed BIP-3 process rules, 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 has produced fewer than 1% of BIP editor comments since additional editors began serving in April 2024, according to Murch's mailing list post.

Dashjr rejected the accusations. "These are false accusations," he wrote, adding that he had consistently followed the BIP process. He countered that Murch, rather than himself, had broken communication with other editors and argued that Murch should instead be removed.

Community Split on Removal Process

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.

The removal proposal, GitHub pull request 2248, remains open. A separate pull request, 2245, seeks to change BIP-110's status from Complete through Deployed to Closed following the stalled activation attempt. The live BIP-110 specification still labels the proposal Complete.

The 55% threshold that BIP-110 required is notably low by historical standards. Previous successful soft forks like SegWit required 95% miner support, while Taproot used a 90% threshold before switching to a different activation method. Bitcoin traded at approximately $65,239 as of Aug. 10, up 3.7% over the past week.

The episode raises a structural question that extends beyond these two individuals. If the multi-editor system introduced in 2024 cannot prevent unilateral action on controversial proposals, what additional safeguards should be implemented? More editors, formal review periods, or quorum requirements for assigning BIP numbers to consensus-layer changes are among the options under discussion.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.