Why are more and more people disgusted with Luke Dashjr? Murch has officially proposed the removal of Luke Dashjr's BIP Editor position, a controversy that appears to revolve around BIP-110 but has accumulated over the years. Luke Dashjr is one of the earliest developers of Bitcoin and a significant contributor to Bitcoin Core. He has long insisted that Bitcoin should maintain its "pure peer-to-peer electronic cash" positioning and has strongly opposed non-financial data storage on the chain. The most famous conflict occurred after the rise of the Ordinals and inscription ecology. In 2023, the Ordinals protocol allows users to write data such as images and text into Bitcoin blocks, triggering new gameplay such as BRC-20 and NFT inscriptions. Luke believes that this behavior is an abuse of Bitcoin block space, even calling it an attack, and pushing Bitcoin Knots clients to modify rules and restrict some non-standard transactions. But the problem is that many Bitcoin users believe that block space belongs to market competition resources, and as long as transactions comply with consensus rules, the value should be determined by the market. Developers and users who support Ordinals believe that Luke's attempt to influence the entire network behavior by maintaining node software has exceeded the authority of ordinary developers. Similar controversies have not arisen for the first time. Luke has been embroiled in community debates several times in the past few years due to his tough stance, including opposition to the blockchain route, opposition to non payment uses on the chain, promotion of filtering specific transaction types, and later participation in dispute escalation schemes such as BIP-110. Supporters believe that he is protecting the long-term security and decentralization of Bitcoin, preventing block space from being occupied by low value data. Opponents argue that Luke often brings his personal understanding of what Bitcoin should be into the process of technological governance, and even attempts to use his influence in Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots, and BIP processes to drive his own path. That's why the core issue raised by Murch this time is not whether Luke supports BIP-110, but whether someone involved in highly controversial protocol changes can continue to serve as the BIP Editor responsible for maintaining the neutrality of the proposal process. BIP Editor is theoretically just a process maintainer and should not be a tool for any party's route struggle. What's even more interesting is that Bitcoin doesn't have a corporate board of directors, a CEO, or a formal governing body. But developer permissions, code merge permissions, and BIP number allocation permissions, these seemingly technical roles actually possess enormous soft power. The Luke Dashjr controversy is essentially a resurgence of the contradictions that have existed in the development of Bitcoin over the past decade Should Bitcoin be a frozen digital gold system or an open protocol that allows the community to constantly explore new uses? There is no simple answer to this question. But what can be certain is that in a system without a central manager, the biggest conflict is often not code, but people.