All for that. The minority chain born from BIP-110 shut down almost immediately, without disrupting the functioning of Bitcoin. This technical failure now extends to the area of governance: Mark “Murch” Erhardt calls for the removal of Luke Dashjr from the group responsible for administering the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. We take stock of the latest twists and turns in this affair.
BIP-110: Two blocks mined, then a chain stopped
BIP-110 proposed limiting for approximately one year several methods used to write arbitrary data into Bitcoin transactions. Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens and certain uses of OP_RETURN were among the main targets. Its defenders wanted to preserve block space for payments, while its opponents denounced a form of transaction filtering.
The mandatory signaling phase began at block 961,632. From this height, nodes applying BIP-110 rejected blocks that did not display the required signal, even if they respected the usual Bitcoin rules.
A minority branch then appeared. It only produced two blocks before getting stuck at height 961,633, while the main chain continued normal operation. Of the 2,016 blocks preceding this sequence, only 51 supported BIP-110, or 2.53%, compared to the 55% needed to avoid a split.
BIP-110 technically remains a soft fork proposal, as it tightens the validity rules instead of relaxing them. However, its activation mechanism caused a temporary split: a minority of nodes refused blocks accepted by the rest of the network.
The planned restrictions were therefore not adopted by the main channel. Ordinary transactions and BTC holdings have not undergone any changes. The main risk concerned users who attempted to move tokens from the minority branch, due to lack of protection against transaction replay.
But this technical failure could have greater human consequences than expected.
Luke Dashjr challenged after fork failure
Indeed, Bitcoin Core developer Mark “Murch” Erhardt, himself BIP Editor, requested the removal of Luke Dashjr from this function. He accuses him of a conflict of interest in the treatment of BIP-110, a proposal to which he actively contributed.
According to Mark Erhardt, he wanted to assign a number to the text prematurely, before discussions on the mailing list were finished, and then quickly merged a significant change. He also claims that Luke Dashjr has participated in less than 1% of editorial discussions since the team was expanded in 2024.
These accusations must be distinguished from a formal decision. The BIP Editors administer the documentary submission: they check the presentation of the proposals, assign the numbers and manage their status. They do not decide whether a modification will be adopted by Bitcoin. The filing also specifies that the recording of a BIP constitutes neither approval nor proof of consensus.
The official list currently has six editors: Bryan Bishop, Jon Atack, Luke Dashjr, Mark Erhardt, Olaoluwa Osuntokun and Ruben Somsen. The procedure does not provide a simple mechanism to rule one out. Erhardt's motion therefore launches a debate, but does not produce any automatic effect.
