A proposed eCash fork has put roughly 1.1 million BTC linked to Satoshi Nakamoto at the center of a new dispute. Under the usual logic of chain splits, those coins would be mirrored on the new network. Paul Sztorc, CEO of LayerTwo Labs, has suggested a different allocation: 600,000 eCash to Satoshi’s addresses, while the remaining 500,000 eCash would go to early contributors helping fund the eCash project.
That change has triggered a heated argument over whether the plan crosses a basic line on ownership. After facing accusations of “theft” on X, Sztorc rejected the claim and said the move would not qualify as technical theft. The backlash did not stop there. The discussion quickly moved beyond mechanics and into the rules Bitcoin users believe should never be bent.
Why untouched Satoshi coins carry special weight
The coins believed to belong to Satoshi have not moved since 2009, and that fact has long carried symbolic value inside the Bitcoin community. In the source material, critics argue these holdings matter not only because of their size, but because they represent a case where even Bitcoin’s creator did not act outside the same rules that apply to everyone else. Redirecting rights tied to those coins to support a new project, even without violating protocol rules on the original chain, has been framed as an ethical problem rather than a technical one.
Beau Turner, CEO of Abundant Mines, told CoinDesk that Bitcoin was built around universal property rights, and that any proposal aimed at seizing the founder’s coins would amount to a major ethical mistake. For opponents, the issue is not confined to one fork. If Satoshi’s addresses can be treated differently, the boundary protecting every other holder may look less firm.
Debate widens to old addresses and Bitcoin’s social contract
The article also points to a related discussion over freezing or restricting older, less secure addresses, especially those thought to belong to Satoshi. That idea touches a sensitive point because Bitcoin has long been associated with immutability and a social contract that resists exceptions. Once an exception is accepted, users may start questioning how durable those principles really are.
Vijay Selvam, author of Principles of Bitcoin, argued that freezing Satoshi’s coins would cause irreparable damage to Bitcoin’s monetary properties, whatever the justification. In his view, setting that precedent would leave users unable to fully trust that their own assets are safe from future rights violations. The article says he sees Bitcoin as something meant to preserve value across generations, like digital gold, and warns that forks targeting Satoshi’s coins weaken that claim.
eCash seen as fallback plan and pressure tactic
Sztorc previously tried to advance Bitcoin sidechains through BIP300 and BIP301, but those proposals failed to win broad support. In that context, the eCash fork is being read in two ways: as an alternative route, and as leverage if those proposals remain stuck. Sztorc said he might abandon the eCash plan if BIP300 and BIP301 become active on the network.
At the time described in the source, the developer community had not responded to that appeal. It also remains unclear whether the fork could produce durable economic value. For now, the article suggests social pressure and ethical friction are outweighing technical design and financial considerations, with the dispute drawing attention back to Bitcoin’s claims around property rights and equal treatment under the rules.