Via reclaimthenet.org
A failed soft fork proposal and allegations of procedural overreach have ignited one of Bitcoin's most consequential governance disputes in years
Mark “Murch” Erhardt, a Bitcoin Core developer and fellow BIP Editor, has formally recommended removing Luke Dashjr from the group of editors who oversee Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. The move comes in the wake of BIP-110’s failure, a proposal that attempted to regulate arbitrary data embedding in Bitcoin transactions and reportedly triggered a chainsplit.
What went wrong with BIP-110 #
BIP-110 was a consensus soft fork proposal designed to impose temporary limits on data storage features within Bitcoin transactions. The stated goal was to preserve Bitcoin’s core function as sound money by clamping down on what proponents viewed as misuse of block space for arbitrary data storage.
On August 9, the proposal’s mandatory signaling began at block 961,632 with a required miner support threshold of 55%. That threshold, notably low by historical soft fork standards, didn’t save it. The proposal failed and reportedly caused a chainsplit, precisely the kind of network disruption that Bitcoin’s governance process is supposed to prevent.
Erhardt’s complaint centers on how Dashjr handled the proposal from an editorial standpoint. According to Erhardt, Dashjr prematurely assigned a BIP number to the proposal and then hastily merged a related pull request, bypassing the coordination and review that typically accompanies changes of this magnitude.
A long history of editorial friction #
Dashjr is one of Bitcoin’s longest-serving BIP Editors, holding the role since at least 2011. His vocal opposition to Ordinals and inscriptions, which use Bitcoin block space to store images and other data, has been a recurring flashpoint.
The current roster of BIP Editors listed in BIP 3 includes five members: Bryan Bishop, Jon Atack, Luke Dashjr, Mark “Murch” Erhardt, and Olaoluwa Osuntokun. Multiple editor positions were introduced in 2024 specifically to address concerns about concentrated authority in the BIP governance process.
Why governance disputes matter for Bitcoin’s market #
The 55% miner signaling threshold that BIP-110 required is worth noting in context. Previous successful soft forks like SegWit required 95% miner signaling, while the Taproot upgrade also used a 90% threshold before switching to a different activation method. A 55% bar for a consensus change is unusually low and suggests the proposal’s backers knew broad support would be difficult to secure.
What happens next #
Removing a BIP Editor isn’t as simple as Erhardt filing a recommendation. The BIP process itself doesn’t have a clean mechanism for ousting editors, which means the community will need to reach some form of rough consensus on how to proceed.
The dispute also raises a structural question that extends well beyond these two individuals. If the multi-editor system introduced in 2024 can’t prevent unilateral action on controversial proposals, what additional safeguards, if any, should be implemented? More editors? Formal review periods? Quorum requirements for assigning BIP numbers to consensus-layer changes?
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our