The eCash project, which has been on the agenda recently in the Bitcoin ecosystem, is described as a new airdrop rather than a traditional Bitcoin fork. While this proposal, put forward by Paul Sztorc, sparks a heated debate within the Bitcoin community over basic principles, developers and infrastructure providers argue that it could be dangerous.
“Instead of stealing from Bitcoin, a new chain is being launched”
Sergio Lerner, one of the founders of Rootstock Labs, emphasizes that eCash does not take any asset directly from Bitcoin, but is an asset built on a completely new blockchain. While Lerner takes a stance against a typical Bitcoin fork, he states that his main concern for the project stems from targeting the existing user base via airdrop rather than an actual breakout.
“An airdrop to UTXO holders does not benefit Bitcoin users; instead, it leaves them with significant risks as users are forced to move funds from their cold wallets and interact with applications they are not accustomed to,” he explained.
Such airdrops, which are quite rare in Bitcoin, are known to cause confusion in the past. The distribution method, which is based on Bitcoin’s “unspent transaction output” set (UTXO), poses a major operational risk, especially for Bitcoin holders who do not want to move their old assets. Additionally, if users want to buy tokens, the possibility of encountering illegal transactions increases.
Lack of replay protection and security risks
One of the biggest concerns in the community is that eCash does not offer full replay protection on the Bitcoin network. The fact that two chains have similar transaction formats creates the possibility that a valid transaction made on one chain will be considered valid on the other. This situation can unintentionally lead to the same transaction occurring on both sides and causing asset loss.
Dan Held considers the project’s reallocation of coins thought to belong to Satoshi a “marketing move to create influence” and argues that the lack of replay protection makes claiming the tokens quite risky.
Not only technical security but also the distribution mechanism is criticized. Because many users keep their assets through stock exchanges or custody services. When who owns the keys becomes more complicated, the risk of new tokens not reaching their real owners increases, or some of them do not reach them at all. For sidechains and various institutional platforms running on Bitcoin, this may require new coordination or major software updates to securely split coins between the two networks.
Social boundaries and ethical debate
In eCash’s funding mechanism, some of the coins expected to belong to Satoshi in the new network are allocated to early investors. Lerner criticizes this method, describing it as unethical and unnecessary. Jay Polack, from the strategy team of the Bitcoin sidechain project VerifiedX, emphasizes that this initiative is part of a much broader trend that questions the fundamental ownership structure of Bitcoin.
“Bitcoin’s core ownership structure cannot be disrupted. Such a move goes against Bitcoin’s most fundamental principle,” Polack says.
As a result, it appears that Bitcoin is as tightly bound to social norms as it is a software or consensus system. Although eCash does not technically propose a major change for Bitcoin, it has sparked a debate about what kind of experiments should be allowed in the ecosystem. The Bitcoin community’s approach to new projects determines not only the code but also the behavior of users and the community culture.
