Motion to remove Luke Dashjr from BIP Editors

[Murch]

Hello everyone,

I recommend that Luke Dashjr be removed from the position of BIP Editor.

Over the past several years, Luke has been at the center of many
contentious disputes within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and this week a new
forkcoin spun out of Bitcoin under his leadership.

More specifically, Luke was heavily involved in the creation and
implementation of BIP110, the proposal that led to the fork. During that
process, he also exercised his authority as a BIP Editor inconsistently
with the established editorial process unfairly favoring the proposal he
was involved in. For example, he attempted to assign a BIP number to the
draft publicly on Twitter before the proposal had been discussed on the
mailing list, and he merged a PR updating the BIP within minutes of the
PR being opened.

The latter is particularly notable given that Luke has otherwise made
hardly any contributions to the day-to-day work of the BIP Editors since
the additional editors began serving in April 2024: he left fewer than
1% of the BIP Editor comments in the repository since then, and the
merge action of this PR was his first since May 2024.

Communication between Luke and other BIP Editors had already broken down
last year, following a discussion about his attempt to side-step the
process by prematurely assigning a BIP number out of band.

Taken together, I believe these circumstances raise serious concerns
about Luke continuing to hold editorial authority. In particular:

- he has exercised his editorial privileges in a manner that raises
conflict-of-interest concerns;
- he has contributed little to the ongoing workload of the BIP Editors;
- his recent championing of a contentious soft fork that now appears to
evolve into a hard fork represents a complete departure from the Bitcoin
development ecosystem; and
- trust, communication, and coordination with the other BIP Editors have
broken down.

For these reasons, I motion that Luke be removed as a BIP Editor.

Murch

[Luke Dashjr]

These are false accusations. I have followed the BIP process
consistently for years. Your novice opinions alone do not establish new
processes.

You are the one who stopped communicating, not I.

You are the one who should be removed.

Luke

[Jameson Lopp]

This is unprecedented because there is, to my knowledge, no formal governance structure or policy around management of BIP Editors.

I see no need to rehash the lengthy list of disputes in which Luke has been involved; it seems to me that ultimately this comes down to reputation.

In my view, Luke has proven himself to be poorly suited to working well with others. It's nearly impossible for him to communicate clearly because he often operates under completely different definitions of terms than are standard, and this twisting of terminology seems to be his modus operandi for remaining "honest" (in his view) while making outrageous statements.

Beyond that, his open hostility and animosity toward fellow contributors and often even the whole of Bitcoin Core as an organization make it incredibly puzzling to me why he should have any association with it whatsoever.

This isn't a democracy and I have no vote. But it seems to me that if the other BIP Editors are uninterested in continuing to work with Luke, they are under no obligation to leave privileged access open for him to potentially abuse.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ad36522e-f479-4ac3-9904-cf00cfa8ec46%40murch.one.

[Matt Corallo]

I see no reason why he should not be removed.

Matt

[Olaoluwa Osuntokun]

Hi Murch,

I second this motion.

Luke put forth a proposal, then went on to receive direct and substantial
technical feedback from all across the ecosystem, but rather than faithfully
engaging with such feedback (we're all liars ofc), he used his position as a
BIP editor to fast track the proposal anyway, assigning it a number out of band
(thereby side stepping the normal procedure), all while contributing next to
nothing to the day-to-day work of the other BIP editors.

I think it's worth being very explicit w.r.t this motion. This isn't about
"punishing" a developer for advocating a fork. Devs are ofc free to champion
any idea, no matter how dumb or contentious they are, forking if they deem it
necessary. Rather this is about whether someone who bypasses all editorial
processes when it benefits them, cannot maintain a normal working relationship
with his co-editors, and now is the head of a project hellbent on creating a
new alt-coin (after their failed fork) can be trusted with an editorial
position within Bitcoin's standard process. It should be clear to anyone
reading this, that he cannot.

His persistent fork also creates a clear conflict of interest: Luke is now the
leader of a project that seeks to undermine Bitcoin itself (you fool, don't you
see, bcash jr is the real Bitcoin!), a standing BIP editor shouldn't have a
direct stake in such a project.

-- Laolu

[Michael Tidwell]

Luke,

Thanks for the years of hard work. Genuinely appreciated.

It's my opinion this is the right move. And, it would be better to step down yourself than get forced out through this informal process (Frankly it's embarrassing that this seems appropriate given your historic contributions). I believe it's apparent to most, (and I hope to you), that it's unlikely you would be working effectively with Core from here.

There’s going to be a need for strong technical leader around decentralized mining at Ocean, and for a solid BIP editor if that new PoW chain happens. Whoever takes that on is going to need real conviction. Good luck with whatever comes next and whatever happens. Looking forward to what you building more amazing things at Ocean (again being genuine), so far y'all have made a splash, looking forward to the waves! (get it? because water and ocean.. anyways).

Anyways for "communication", make sure you haven't accidentally blocked someone who you think has stopped communicating with you.. for instance if I wasn't blocked, I would have just sent this as a DM.

Thanks,
Tidwell

[Antoine Riard]

Hello

I think it's the best move for Luke to remove himself from the BIP
editorship, even if it's temporary. If he's not blocked from the
github, nothing prevent him to contribute to the review work of
the BIPs in a good spirit in the future and regain his BIP editor
role.

I have very been little been involved in all this OP_RETURN mess,
whatever side one has taken in this discussion, so I hope and aim
to hold an objective tone, in what I'm saying there after.

I do have a very mixed opinion of the Luke's persona himself. On
one hand, I respect the years of hard work and dedication invested
in the bitcoin project. He has been technically contributing more
longer than I had. On the other hand, for someone who is spending
his time questioning the morality of his technical peers, I always
been a bit cold about his professional ethics, given how he did
behave repeatedly few times, especially with what did happen with
coredev atlanta '22.

As a former coreDev co-organizer, I very coldly appreciated that he
went to the FBI to accuse coredev meeting participants to have been
involved in any manner with the loss of his coins at the end of '22
and put the organizers in a situation where they legally had to
reveal the names of *all* the participants in the meeting in an
*indiscriminate* fashion.

Rat'ing out your bitcoin core devs colleagues to a domestic intel
agency to have a case build on all of them is very not okay, and I
would say this whatever the jurisdiction that would be involved.
Beyond, once the FBI subpoena was public, I reached out privately
to Luke in April '24 to have more clarifications on this affair,
as a former coredev co-organizer.

Neither Luke, neither the FBI went back to me and as far as I know
no participant was ever worried or more questioned about this Luke
claim, so it tells you a lot about the seriousness of the ungrounded
accusations that were made on the coredev participants as an indiscriminate
group. If you have ever a problem with someone in this space, keep it
contained and stay professional. There is a sense of measure and
balance to have.

On the removal of Luke, if it has been to be done by using the
github administrative permission, as far as I know there is no
mention in BIP1 or BIP2 or BIP3 about what is a formal process
to remove someone from a BIP editor role, against her or his consent.

Short of that, in my opinion if there is a wish to make the removal
happening on bright lines, I would suggest to follow the following
formalities:
- in the lack of a clear organ deciding the removal of the BIP editor,
  have all existent BIP editors giving their public says on this
  and their own motivations
- the BIP process is not a democracy, though everyone that has ever
  contributed to the repository and who is still broadly active in
  bitcoin has a material interest in the resolution of this issue.
  if we check the gitlog there are like ~531 individual contributors
  to the git tree. if we had people who are credited or thanks in the
  BIPs documents we might have a rough 100 more people. it would be
  legitimate to have the ones who have contributed, at least significantly
  or meaningfully to have as say, without putting the process in a
  situation of functional paralysis.
- give a chance to Luke or someone taking his defense to answer point
  by point in public what are the motivations justifying his removal
  of his BIP editor role, based on evidences if needed. giving him at least 2
  weeks or even a full month would legitimate. he can always be temporarily
  removed until there is a legit justification that has been answered from his side.
- Murch was mentioning Luke's conflict of interest as a motivation to
  remove him from his BIP editor. nothing says in BIP3 editor's
  responsibilities that they should stay free from "conflict of interest".
  however the very goal the BIP process is to have implementation inter-
  compatibility therefore a shared set of logical rules executed the same
  by all the implementation to have a common network. it would appear to
  me that it's in the "spirit" of the BIP process that BIP editors have
  a duty of neutrality with regards to how they fulfill their editors role

On this last point, I would strongly suggest to amend the BIP3 document
to underscore that editors have an explicit duty of neutrality, and that
under this duty they should not engage in the promotion of contentious
fork, even under one of their other hats (be it the maintainer of a full-node
implementation or whatever). Otherwise it's lacking the good faith they
owe to the community under their BIP editor roles.

Bitcoin is at its heart a scientific project, science and engineering
made progress by the rationalized discussion of contradictory viewpoints.
No one can claim to have papal infaillability in this space, though if
you do so you're always free to go to build your own fork and church and
not to try to coerce people under your religion. By education, I'm sensible
in matters of freedom of consciousness.

I respect Luke's historical contributions in this space, so it's better for
the community to tread him with respect and fairness on this aspect, even if
it means taking a bit more time to resolve this issue and following more
formalities. We should not race to the bottom in matters of procedural
standards, and somehow acting in such a way it's closing surface for
ulterior contestations.

Finally, I would underscore we're in the middle of the month of August,
at a period where people can be in vacations, it's okay to be more lenient
on the time granted to resolute this issue. Some people might be on the
road for vacations, or between two transport (like me) and be usually a
bit less on their keyboard.

All my take and humble opinion only.

Best,
Antoine
OTS hash: 2dd0347a79c77bd2e56fa9587d0099baa9fcebccc688732e23c38fb4d99044fe

[Jonas Nick]

I support this motion.

BIP editors should actively review BIP drafts, apply the BIP process neutrally,
and provide technically precise feedback.

Inactive editors do not need editorial permissions. This is even more true if
their main activity in the last two years is using the role to advance a
proposal they personally support while bypassing the established process, as
Murch described.

The basic duties of BIP editors require precise use of established technical
terminology and good judgment. Luke routinely uses technical terms in ways that
are incompatible with their established meanings. Recent examples of such misuse
and poor judgment include saying that "BIP110 is Bitcoin," that "BIP110 has
consensus," and that "Activation is certain" [1].

I find it particularly concerning that Luke, in his recent advocacy for BIP 110,
irresponsibly misled users by repeatedly calling it "zero risk" [2].

The BIPs repository deserves editors who can communicate effectively and
maintain a basic working relationship with the other editors. Calling Murch, one
of the most productive BIP editors, "a liar" without even identifying what he
allegedly lied about does not meet that standard [3].

[1] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2082795948648919419
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2081971093292662882
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2086121519315374526
[2] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2030565712629035382
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2081086470194860053
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2067690041669832963
[3] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2046598586494857478

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Aug 09, 2026 at 11:29:09AM -0700, Murch wrote:
> I recommend that Luke Dashjr be removed from the position of BIP Editor.

Very overdue.

Having a BIP editor who's actively promoting a minority fork as the
real Bitcoin while lying about the risks of such an approach and calling
everyone who disagrees with him a liar and/or a pedophile is completely
untenable. The bar for being a BIP editor should be substantially higher
than that, but it certainly mustn't be below it.

Cheers,
aj

[Murch]

Thanks for the reply, Luke.

On 2026-08-09 12:35, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> These are false accusations. I have followed the BIP process
> consistently for years. Your novice opinions alone do not establish
> new processes.
>
> You are the one who stopped communicating, not I.
>
> You are the one who should be removed.

You argue like my friend’s five-year-old: “Liar.” “No, you.”

Your history of toxic behavior has been well established since Gavin
Andresen’s tenure.¹ You assert things without evidence, fail to explain
your point of view, and revise history when doing so makes you look less
likely to have been wrong.

You have tried to pass off a modified fork² as the Bitcoin Core package
for Gentoo. You tried to block³ Taproot’s authors from documenting their
preferred deployment mechanism, attempting instead to supersede it with
your personal preference. You tried to use Bitcoin Core’s translation
resources for your personal fork and, when asked to stop, attempted a
hostile takeover⁴ of the repository.

You have baselessly accused fellow Bitcoin Core contributors of
stealing⁵ from you. You have filed CVEs against the judgment of other
contributors. You call Bitcoin Core a malware project and an attack on
Bitcoin when you disagree with its decisions, while simultaneously
presenting Bitcoin Knots as merely another release of Bitcoin Core,
associating it with Bitcoin Core’s reputation and making it appear that
everyone who works on Bitcoin Core is also a Knots contributor.

Especially over the last few months, you have deliberately
misrepresented the prospects of your soft fork on an almost daily basis.

People have been making excuses for you for over a decade: “Luke is the
tenth man,” “Luke’s unique point of view is valuable,” “Luke is socially
awkward and confuses personal perception with objective reality,” and so on.

I’m tired of people giving you a pass for unacceptable behavior simply
because everyone has become accustomed to it. I’m fed up with your
instigation of harassment campaigns, bullying, and name-calling. I no
longer want to work with someone who either pretends not to recognize,
or genuinely cannot recognize, that other people can disagree with him
and still have a valid point of view.

You have contributed very little to the BIPs repository in half a
decade, causing the work in the repository to stall twice in the last
few years. At the same time, you have happily taken credit⁵ for the work
of others. You have been a net-negative contributor to Bitcoin for
years. Whatever you contributed in the past, it is past time that we
stop associating with you.

Now that people have made you king of your own forkcoin, please let us
take you at your word when you write, “Bpedo is not Bitcoin” and “Yes, I
have no interest in having anything to do with Bpedo.

Godspeed,
Murch

¹ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0
²
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pfgjg/exposed_lukejr_plans_on_forcing_blacklists_on_all/
³
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/lottrue-or-lotfalse-this-is-the-last-hurdle-before-taproot-activation
⁴ https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2024-05-02.html#l-573
⁵ https://xcom/LukeDashjr/status/1921571463343055003
⁶ https://x.com/murchandamus/status/19865630014037773913

[Antoine Poinsot]

Hi Murch,

I support this. Luke has a long history of abusing whatever position of influence he finds himself in, whether formal or informal. I believe he should be nowhere near a position of privileged access.

Here are a few examples:

• In 2014, Luke abused his position as maintainer of the Bitcoin Core package for Gentoo, silently distributing a modified Bitcoin Core software that blacklists some addresses. https://bugs.gentoo.org/524512
• In 2021, Luke abused his position as sole maintainer of the BIPs repository to stall the inclusion of activation parameters for Taproot, with which he personally disagreed. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1104 ; https://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-04-18.log
• In 2024, Luke abused his position as maintainer of Bitcoin Core's translation platform to sneak in Bitcoin Knots strings, which contributors to the translation platform complained about. "If the bitcoin-knots ressources are supposed to belong the a forked project of bitcoin-core (bitcoin-knots), i would prefer a new project being setup here on Transifex, since its kinda hijacking the main bitcoin core project and binding translation effort from members who want to support the bitcoin core project from my impression." When pushed to stop abusing Bitcoin Core translation contributors' time for his own project, Luke started claiming that "Bitcoin Knots is part of the Bitcoin Core project". https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2024-05-02.log
• In 2025, Luke abused his position as co-maintainer of the BIPs repository to fast-track a consensus change proposal he supported (and largely drafted the specification of) by unilaterally assigning it a BIP number, after a long period of inactivity. https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1982986197006987725

That is more than enough ground to bar him from any privileged position, yet there is more. Luke has also been continuously using deceptive language to push his own agenda. Besides the examples Jonas Nick already gave in this thread, Luke claimed his personal Bitcoin Knots fork is part of the Bitcoin Core project and "is produced with the same development process/contributors as Core". He also claimed the same Bitcoin Core project is malicious and anybody opposing his controversial consensus change is a supporter of child pornography.

Removing this person from the position of BIP editor is long overdue.

Best regards,
Antoine Poinsot

--