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.

Best regards,
Antoine Poinsot

On Sunday, August 9th, 2026 at 2:53 PM, Murch murch@murch.one wrote:

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

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/ad36522e-f479-4ac3-9904-cf00cfa8ec46%40murch.one.