Paul Sztorc, the LayerTwo Labs CEO behind the planned August 2026 Bitcoin hard fork dubbed “eCash,” has issued a pointed defense of the project’s most controversial feature: the redistribution of coins linked to Satoshi Nakamoto’s Patoshi-pattern wallets on the new chain.
In a post on X, Sztorc pushed back against accusations of theft that have dominated the conversation since he announced the fork on April 24. “We do not take any of Satoshi’s BTC,” he wrote. “We gift Satoshi 600,000 eCash … BTC balances are untouched by eCash.”
Sztorc stressed that the eCash fork creates an entirely new chain and asset. Bitcoin holders will receive a 1:1 airdrop of eCash tokens at the fork snapshot, but the Bitcoin mainnet itself remains completely unaffected. On the new eCash ledger, 600,000 coins go to Satoshi’s equivalent addresses, while roughly 500,000 are redirected to early investors funding pre-launch development.
The ‘More Generous Than Any Fork’ Argument
Sztorc’s core rebuttal centres on a comparison with previous forks. When Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin in 2017, every balance was replicated 1:1 — including the full 1.1 million coins attributed to Satoshi. The same was true for Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, and every subsequent fork. None reduced Satoshi’s allocation.
By gifting 600,000 rather than 1.1 million, Sztorc argues eCash gives Satoshi less than any prior fork — while still making Satoshi the largest holder on the new chain. He frames the 500,000 redirected coins as necessary to avoid a “zombie project.” No further breakdown of investor coin distribution has been disclosed.
Drivechain Focus and Fork Mechanics
The primary purpose of eCash is the activation of Drivechains (BIPs 300 and 301), a sidechain scaling solution Sztorc has championed since 2015. The chain is set to launch with seven native L2s, including Truthcoin (Prediction Markets) and Photon (Quantum-Resistant Layer). eCash will use SHA-256 mining but with a reset difficulty, allowing existing Bitcoin miners to “merge-mine” the new chain.
However, the technical implementation has drawn fire. Critic Josh Ellithorpe flagged the absence of robust replay protection, which could theoretically expose users to unintended transactions across both chains. Additionally, developer Calle (Cashu protocol) argued that BIP 300 grants miners too much authority, potentially allowing a hash-power majority to misappropriate sidechain funds.
Bitcoin’s Identity Question
The controversy arrives as Bitcoin’s development philosophy is already under strain. The BIP 361 quantum migration proposal raised similar questions about whether dormant coins should be frozen for security. Where BIP 361 asks if the community can freeze coins to protect the network, eCash asks if a fork can redistribute them to fund development. Both challenge Bitcoin’s commitment to immutable ownership.
With code freeze planned 30 days before launch, the coming months will determine whether eCash gains traction — or fades like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV before it.
Also Read: Strive Acquires $61M in Bitcoin, Boosts Holdings to $1.3B
