Veteran Developer's Plan to Split Bitcoin Blockchain and Redistribute Satoshi's Coins Sparks Outrage

A long-time Bitcoin developer, Paul Sztorc, has put forth a proposal for a significant overhaul of the Bitcoin architecture, which has been met with resistance from the broader community. In response, Sztorc has suggested a radical step: a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, dubbed eCash, slated for August 2026. This new chain would replicate Bitcoin's code and provide existing bitcoin holders with equivalent tokens on the new network at no cost. However, the community is objecting to the funding aspect, which involves reallocating coins linked to Bitcoin's elusive founder, Satoshi Nakamoto. A hard fork can be likened to a railway line diverging into two separate paths, allowing for distinct destinations. When consensus on a proposed change to Bitcoin's code cannot be reached, a group of developers may copy the existing blockchain and launch it as a separate chain, sharing Bitcoin's history up to the point of the split but diverging thereafter with its own rules, features, and token. This is similar to the 2017 chain split that resulted in the creation of the Bitcoin Cash blockchain and its native token, BCH. The technical dispute at that time centered on Bitcoin's 1MB block size limit, which restricts the number of transactions that can be processed every 10 minutes when new blocks are added to the blockchain. Sztorc's proposed eCash hard fork will create a new chain called eCash, with native eCash tokens. According to Sztorc, holders of BTC at the time of the fork will receive equivalent eCash tokens, which they can sell, keep, or ignore. The fork is scheduled for Bitcoin block height 964,000 in August 2026, and a coin-splitter tool will be released to help holders separate their BTC from their new eCash. The new chain will be a near-copy of Bitcoin's existing blockchain, with the addition of Drivechains, a scaling architecture Sztorc first proposed in 2015. Drivechains are sidechains tethered to the Bitcoin blockchain, allowing seamless movement of BTC between the main chain and sidechains without altering Bitcoin's base layer. Each sidechain can operate under its own rules and features, enabling developers to build new capabilities on top of Bitcoin without requiring the entire network to adopt those changes. Drivechains can be thought of as service roads attached to the main highway, allowing for more efficient traffic handling and greater flexibility. Seven Drivechains are already in development, including a privacy chain modeled on Zcash, a prediction market called Truthcoin, a decentralized exchange called CoinShift, and a quantum-resistant chain called Photon. The contentious aspect of Sztorc's plan is the proposed use of coins that would have gone to Satoshi Nakamoto's equivalent addresses on the new eCash chain to attract investors before the fork goes live. This decision has been met with criticism from the community, with some labeling it as outright theft. A potential hard fork would bring Bitcoin's entire transaction history to the new chain, resulting in every bitcoin balance, including Satoshi's 1.1 million bitcoin, being reflected as an equivalent eCash balance on the new chain. As per the plan, fewer than half of the Satoshi-equivalent eCash coins will be assigned to investors. The exact mechanism of this assignment remains unclear, but since eCash does not yet exist, the pre-hard fork assignment appears to be a promised credit following a successful hard fork. Sztorc argues that this plan will provide collaborators with a tangible incentive to get involved early, building momentum and completing work ahead of launch. Without this mechanism, the project risks becoming a 'zombie project' that ships unfinished or a centralized project where a small group of developers gains outsized control over the chain's direction. The industry response has been largely negative, with Bitcoin advocate Peter McCormack stating that taking Satoshi coins is theft and disrespectful. Josh Ellithorpe, chief technology officer at Pixelated Ink, expressed concerns about the precedent it sets and how it could eventually pose a risk to everyone's BTC holdings.