Bitcoin Developer Plans Fork to Reassign Satoshi’s 1.1M BTC

A bold new proposal is shaking the Bitcoin world again. Long-time developer Paul Sztorc has revealed plans for a new Bitcoin hard fork called eCash, expected to launch in August 2026. The idea sounds simple at first. Every Bitcoin holder would receive an equal amount of the new token.

BITCOIN DEVELOPER PROPOSES FORK TO REDISTRIBUTE SATOSHI'S 1.1M BTC

Long-time Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has proposed a hard fork called eCash, scheduled for August 2026, that would create an entirely new chain copied from Bitcoin's existing code.

According to the proposal,… pic.twitter.com/iqTWSpL9DY

— BSCN (@BSCNews) April 27, 2026

But then comes the twist. The plan includes reassigning part of Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated 1.1 million dormant BTC. That single detail has turned a technical proposal into a major controversy.

A New Bitcoin Fork With Familiar Mechanics

The proposed fork would copy Bitcoin’s current codebase. Paul Sztorc described it as a near-identical system at launch. It would use the same mining algorithm and follow similar rules. He explained the token split clearly: “If you have 4.19 BTC, then you will get 4.19 eCash.” That means holders do not lose anything. They simply receive new tokens on a separate chain. The project also plans to include Drivechain features. These would allow multiple layer-2 systems to run on top of the network. Supporters say this could expand Bitcoin’s use cases. Critics say it is another attempt to change a system that already works.

The Satoshi Coins Controversy

The biggest issue is not the fork itself. It is what happens to dormant coins. Paul Sztorc proposed reallocating part of Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings. These coins have never moved. Many believe they should remain untouched forever. Sztorc argued that the reassignment is needed to fund development and attract early support. He wrote that the move would help avoid a “zombie project” with no early contributors.

But critics strongly disagree. Some say it breaks one of Bitcoin’s core rules. Ownership is absolute. If coins are not spent, they still belong to their holder. Even David Schwartz questioned the idea publicly, asking: “What are the investors investing in exactly?” That question reflects wider confusion around how such a system would work in practice.

Community Pushback Grows

The reaction has been sharp and immediate. Many developers and analysts say the proposal crosses a line. They argue that changing ownership history sets a dangerous precedent. One response summed it up simply. If this is allowed once, it could happen again. Others also raised concerns about trust. Bitcoin’s value depends on predictable rules. If those rules change, confidence may weaken. The comparison to past forks quickly followed. Unlike earlier splits, this proposal does not try to compete under the Bitcoin name. Still, the tension feels familiar. A small group pushes for change. The larger community resists.

What Happens Next

The fork is still months away. That gives time for debate to grow. Paul Sztorc says the project will move forward. He plans to release tools, test software, and updates before launch. Meanwhile, the broader Bitcoin community remains cautious. For many, the issue is not innovation. It is trust. Bitcoin has survived for years because its rules have stayed firm. Now, this proposal challenges one of its oldest assumptions. Whether it gains traction or fades away, one thing is clear. The debate is no longer just about code. It is about who gets to decide the rules of Bitcoin’s future.