Paul Sztorc aims not to transfer Satoshi Nakamoto’s bitcoin. This simple fact is obscured by the backlash surrounding eCash, a proposed Bitcoin fork set for August at block height 964,000. The new chain intends to mirror Bitcoin’s history up to that point, allowing BTC holders to maintain equivalent balances on the new network—4.19 BTC would equate to 4.19 eCash.
Such actions follow a familiar pattern seen in previous forks like Bitcoin Cash in 2017 and later Bitcoin SV, both of which replicated Bitcoin’s ledger while altering its rules. However, eCash stands out due to its unique approach with Satoshi’s duplicated coins.
Approximately 1.1 million BTC attributed to the pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto are held in dormant addresses associated with the Patoshi pattern, an early mining signature believed, though not conclusively proven, to link back to Satoshi.
In a typical one-to-one fork scenario, these addresses would receive around 1.1 million eCash. Sztorc’s plan proposes allocating 600,000 eCash to those addresses while redirecting the remaining 500,000 eCash to investors supporting the project pre-launch.
As CEO of LayerTwo Labs, Sztorc has contested descriptions of his proposal as theft in a recent X post. The untouched holdings by Satoshi serve as Bitcoin’s foundational guarantee—evidence that even its creator adhered strictly to its rules for all. Redirecting claims on a forked-chain version of those holdings to fund a new project is perceived as an ethical breach, despite no actual theft occurring.
This situation escalates into a property-rights debate over assets existing solely in the new chain. “Bitcoin was created to safeguard and protect inviolable property rights for everyone globally,” noted Beau Turner, CEO of mining firm Abundant Mines, in an email to CoinDesk. He added that any proposal infringing on the creator’s network rights is an ethical misstep too significant to be considered.
The timing intensifies this conflict. Bitcoin enthusiasts have recently debated proposals to freeze or limit old quantum-vulnerable coins, including those associated with Satoshi. These discussions have brought dormant balances, immutability, and social intervention back into focus within Bitcoin culture.
Hence, the eCash controversy arises in a market already sensitive to any intervention regarding Satoshi-linked coins. Vijay Selvam, author of Principles of Bitcoin, argued that even well-intentioned proposals could undermine Bitcoin’s core monetary promise by establishing a precedent for treating dormant coins differently.
“Freezing Satoshi’s coins under any circumstances creates a damaging precedent for Bitcoin’s monetary properties,” Selvam wrote on X. “Such a precedent leaves Bitcoiners uncertain about the safety of their money into the distant future, prompting them to constantly monitor news for potential mining interventions.”
Selvam likens this issue to gold’s durability, asserting that bitcoin should similarly inspire confidence across generations. He warns that setting any precedent for pulling the rug on Bitcoin could undermine its claim as durable and immutable digital gold, eroding trust in its enduring integrity.
Previously, Sztorc has advocated for Drivechains, a proposal allowing sidechains addition to Bitcoin via BIP300 and BIP301. The Bitcoin Core community hasn’t adopted these proposals, making eCash both an alternative plan and pressure tactic. Sztorc mentioned he would abandon the fork if Bitcoin activates these proposals before August, though no indication suggests this will happen.
This is why the proposal matters, even if eCash fails to gain economic relevance. While Bitcoin forks typically struggle in market terms, they test Bitcoin’s social assumptions. Although Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV replicated the ledger and continued trading without displacing BTC, their success was limited. eCash might follow suit, but it presents a more profound question than block size ever did: can a fork inherit Bitcoin’s moral legacy while altering the most renowned untouched balance on its copied chain?