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.

On Sun, Aug 9, 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
> .
>

-- 
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/CADL_X_e-vFu-HDmMhbkY55myh%3DihOJ2J9WpzMvf1X8aDmnQdrg%40mail.gmail.com.