•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drivechain architect Paul Sztorc has announced a new Bitcoin hard fork called eCash, scheduled to launch in August 2026. Sztorc said the split will be 1:1, meaning every Bitcoin (BTC) holder will receive an equal number of eCash coins at the time of the fork.
Sztorc disclosed the plan in a post on X, writing that the fork would “drop this August” and be called “eCash.” He confirmed that the coin split will be 1:1, giving an example that a holder with 4.19 BTC would receive 4.19 eCash. He also said holders can sell, keep, or ignore the new coins.
The project traces its design to Sztorc’s earlier work on BIP300 and BIP301, which are Drivechain proposals that have been contentious within Bitcoin development. On ecash.com, the project describes eCash as a permanent fix aimed at Bitcoin’s scalability and governance problems.
The fork is set to occur in 118 days. The eCash layer-one node is described as a near-copy of Bitcoin Core, using SHA-256d mining. The chain would fork by resetting mining difficulty to its minimum value, which Sztorc acknowledged could create chaotic conditions at launch. The development team said it plans to change seed nodes, the network name, and the network magic, while continuing to merge changes from Bitcoin Core going forward.
BIP300 and BIP301 are intended to activate through CUSF, described as a “core untouched soft fork” mechanism, meaning no lines of code on the L1 will be modified. The activation client would be published periodically and frozen 30 days before the scheduled fork date, alongside planned bug bounty contests during the summer ahead of launch.
The fork is described as replaying all transactions at the time of the split. The team said it would release a coin-splitter tool to support the distribution process. Sztorc said users would receive four months of advance notice, contrasting it with the shorter warning window associated with the 2017 Bitcoin Cash hard fork.
Sztorc’s announcement also outlined seven layer-two (L2) chains currently in development. The chains are described as merged-mined, so miners would automatically earn additional revenue from the L2 activity.
In an interview with Vlad Costea, Sztorc said the Drivechain model is designed to prevent what he calls “dev capture,” or the risk that a single development team or set of backers gains outsized control over a protocol’s direction. He argued that competing L2 chains running under the same merged-mining umbrella would allow market demand to determine which applications gain traction without any single group holding veto power.
The ecash.com website claims the L2 infrastructure can onboard 8 billion users at a “planetary scale,” attributing the capability to merged mining and to the ability for independent developers to deploy Drivechain-based sidechains.
Sztorc compared eCash to Bitcoin Cash (BCH), emphasizing that eCash removes the word “Bitcoin” entirely from the name. He argued that the separate branding, combined with a longer advance notice window and a permanent technical fix, distinguishes eCash from prior forks.
Community feedback has split along familiar lines. One major point of contention involves the name “eCash,” which is already associated with an altcoin network that emerged from the Bitcoin Cash split via Bitcoin ABC. The eCash blockchain community, led by chief developer Amaury Séchet, reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with Sztorc’s decision.
Sztorc responded that the name is “generic,” citing multiple prior uses, including Chaumian eCash (a predecessor idea realized with DigiCash), the “XEC” altcoin, and a private-but-custodial Bitcoin project called “cashu.” He said the team was able to secure ecash.com and related domains.
Other criticism focused on the underlying Drivechain approach. A software developer known as Calle argued that BIP300 drivechains are fundamentally flawed, claiming they grant miners excessive authority and could allow a hashpower majority to misappropriate funds. Calle also said the concept has been broadly dismissed by the Bitcoin community while Sztorc continues to push the idea and criticize Lightning.
Supporters included author and Bitcoin advocate Steve Patterson, who wrote that there are “only a couple serious options for scaling Bitcoin: big blocks (as Satoshi intended), or real sidechains,” adding that big blockers forked off years ago and that Sztorc is now forking to implement sidechains.
A sentiment scan of Sztorc’s X post reported that replies were predominantly negative. It cited roughly 50 to 60 top-level responses within a total of 347, with about 80% to 85% characterized as negative. Reported objections included confusion with the existing eCash token (a fork of Bitcoin Cash) and concerns about a proposed partial reallocation of Satoshi-era coins, which some framed as “stealing” dormant funds. The scan also reported that about 10% to 15% expressed support, citing the potential coin distribution for Bitcoin holders, interest in the Drivechain concept, or Sztorc’s tone, while the remainder raised technical questions or responded sarcastically.
The announcement also implies a near-term stress test for the Bitcoin mining community. Because eCash difficulty would reset to its minimum value at fork time, eCash would be temporarily easier to mine than Bitcoin. Miners able to shift hashrate quickly could accumulate a larger share of early block rewards before difficulty adjusts.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
