Bitcoin developers and industry figures are criticizing Paul Sztorc’s proposed eCash fork as a hazardous airdrop rather than a true fork. They highlight security risks from lacking replay protection and uneven distribution favoring custodians over individual holders. Critics argue it introduces unnecessary operational dangers and philosophical conflicts with Bitcoin’s principles.
Paul Sztorc has proposed eCash, a project framed by some as a Bitcoin fork but described by developers as a new blockchain airdrop to Bitcoin holders based on the UTXO set. Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, stated in an email to CoinDesk, “I’m firmly against Paul’s fork… eCash is a new blockchain… It is not directly taking anything away from bitcoin holders.” He warned that airdropping to UTXO owners exposes users to significant risk, especially those moving funds from cold storage to claim tokens using unfamiliar software. Lerner also noted that custodians controlling UTXO keys often are not the rightful economic owners, disadvantaging users holding Bitcoin through exchanges or platforms. For sidechains like Rootstock, the setup adds coordination challenges to split coins safely across chains. He criticized the funding model for allocating Satoshi-linked coins to early investors as “morally objectionable and unnecessary.” Dan Held, a Bitcoin entrepreneur, called reallocating Satoshi’s coins “shock value marketing,” adding that the lack of replay protection makes redemption “quite hazardous.” Without replay protection, transactions could be broadcast maliciously on both chains, causing accidental fund losses due to shared formats. Jay Polack, head of strategy at Bitcoin sidechain VerifiedX, viewed eCash as an attempt to reinterpret Bitcoin’s core properties. “It’s mind boggling to think that anybody would think that’s a really good idea,” Polack said, arguing that such structures contradict Bitcoin’s native ownership guarantees. While limited support exists for eCash as an optional experiment tied to scaling ideas, most Bitcoin forks historically fail to gain traction. The debate underscores Bitcoin’s resistance to changes in user behavior, risk introduction, and peripheral experiments.
