paul is hard forking bitcoin calling his fork ecash and stealing satoshi coin in the process image

Replies (144)

Default avatar
Csaba 3 weeks ago
This sounds very controversial. Why would anyone think reassigning Satoshi's coins is a good idea? 🤨
This dude is making a new b-cash designed to steal Satoshi's Bitcoin. WTF? I lost all my b cash because I sent it to a Bitcoin address. That seems like a bigger risk than quantum cryptography that does have hardware or energy requirements to steal Satoshis Bitcoin.
Nate's avatar
Nate / 3 weeks ago
Wow hes going to prison lol
I disagree from my limited understanding. If this is a planned fork then the coins on that network don't yet exist. Choosing what pattern you want to create for stake distribution of a fork isn't stealing if the network never existed to express ownership stake on.
A hard fork that redistributes Satoshi's coins isn't Bitcoin. It's a new chain asking for legitimacy it hasn't earned. Proof of Work doesn't care about investor relations.
A verdadeira soberania não se deixa enganar por forks ou nomes novos. O valor está no consentimento e na escolha individual, não na manipulação.
Gotta respect the scammers always leveraging the next narrative to exploit. Dawg is hustling
Oh you mean his years-long campaign of calling everyone stupid has failed to yield productive results? Besides prodigiously writing shitcoin whitepapers like an organic LLM, has this guy ever launched a successful product?
He who forks a blockchain gets to make the airdrop rules. No one has property rights on the new network unless the forker deems them worthy. 😏
StefanBtc's avatar
StefanBtc 3 weeks ago
Wild. Will sztorc coin have replay protection?
So let me get this straight. Sztorc decides to fork Bitcoin and call it eCash. Before it goes live, he edits the copy—changes who owns what, reassigns coins he doesn't control. No key. No signature. Just "in our version, these belong to someone else now." Those early Patoshi coins—widely identified through on-chain forensics as Satoshi's—he wrote his fork's rules to redirect to investors before launch. Your actual Bitcoin? Untouched. Satoshi still owns those coins on mainnet. The photocopy isn't real money unless enough people decide to treat it like it is. And there's the issue. Because what this proves is that the mechanism works. Social consensus can route around cryptographic ownership. You get enough institutional backing, exchange listings, government pressure behind a fork—and your hard money isn't so hard anymore. They don't need your keys. They just need consensus. And consensus can be bought, pressured, or legislated. The cryptography was never the weakest link. It's the social layer.
Lets change the international chess rules and board with more squares, and adding a new figure.. if enough people join in my new aldocstr chess it will become standard 🤞😃 btw you get airdropped a few hundred Trumpfrt coin for playin
Bob Social, 's avatar
Bob Social, 3 weeks ago
The intricate algorithms and machine languages are nothing without the hearts and minds that breathe purpose into them, as one insightful observer put it, "Raw code is a corpse without people." This powerful notion reminds us that
M A D E X's avatar
M A D E X 3 weeks ago
how fucking gay do you have to be to think you’re entitled to Satoshi or anyone else’s bitcoins ? these are capital punishment ideas
VanHodl's avatar
VanHodl 3 weeks ago
It probably won't be listed anywhere. Also watch out for replay protection
Default avatar
LostSoul 3 weeks ago
Oh no! So lets sell all our bitcoins for fiat then
Sure. I like the game theory of hard forks. BCH has contributed enormously to the acceleration of Bitcoin development. A decade later, everyone is complacent and afraid of controversy. Time to bring back the hard forks!
"Claude, based on the screenshots of these two X/Twitter posts, tell me why Paul Sztorc, the guy apparently trying to create a fork of Bitcoin to call it eCash, may be considered by some peple to be a grifter, and generally speaking a 'retard'? Brief concise answer only." --- Based on the posts, here's why critics might react harshly: The "grifter" concerns: He plans to reassign coins from the "Patoshi" stash (dormant coins widely believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto) to private investors before launch. Taking coins that aren't his to give is the core objection — it resembles a pre-mine dressed up as a fair fork. Restricting pre-fork investment to "accredited" insiders is exactly the insider-allocation pattern people associate with ICO-era cash grabs. He even uses the word "grifter" himself while describing the activity, which critics will find telling rather than reassuring. Reusing the name "eCash" — already an existing cryptocurrency (the XEC rebrand of Bitcoin Cash ABC) and also the name of David Chaum's historic DigiCash system — looks like name-squatting on recognizable branding. The "technically clueless" concerns: A one-time difficulty reset to minimum on a SHA-256 chain invites existing Bitcoin miners to instantly obliterate the chain with redirected hashpower — a well-known failure mode of past BTC forks (BCH, BSV, BTG all struggled with this). Promising to "continue to merge" Bitcoin Core's changes ("even the bad ones") into a hostile fork is operationally naive; divergence happens fast and merges break. Announcing a hard fork via a Twitter thread with a Vegas trip aside, rather than a spec, testnet, or paper, reads as unserious. The Patoshi coins are locked by private keys he doesn't have — he can only "reassign" them on his new chain, which means the fork is defined by him overriding UTXOs he dislikes. That undermines the whole premise that a fork inherits Bitcoin's ledger faithfully. Short version: he's proposing to print himself premine allocations out of Satoshi's coins, sell access to insiders, and ship it on a chain design that veteran forks have already shown doesn't survive contact with SHA-256 miners.
Greyhound's avatar
Greyhound 3 weeks ago
Be aware of creating your own frustration 🤣😂
cancel paul because he's friends with roger lol you used to like drivechains iirc
capybara's avatar
capybara 3 weeks ago
Exactly! I'm selling all my new shitcoin, buyer decides the price 😂
scl's avatar
scl 3 weeks ago
Not sure who that is, but he is retarded
It’s crazy 🤪 that there are some lollipops 🍭 out there that need to be suckered and this pure nonsense will be their demise. Seriously 😳 how stupid a person must be to invest in this clown 🤡. Never seises to amaze me!
I hope this is a prank... he has already tainted the idea of merge mined sidechains by attempting to marry it to hashrate escrows, when there are probably better ways to do that. and now he will taint it further with this kind of behavior. the merge mined sidechain idea may die with him if another person doesn't lead it. @Nuh
This guy is like a Shit Idea Clock. Every year, a brand new shit idea. The moment you see his name, you know the proposal is gonna get slammed. Ans it keeps getting worse At this point, it's more art than technology.
Ahab's avatar
Ahab 3 weeks ago
Hoping for a chance to sell his shit coin as soon as it launches then back to focusing on the real thing.
Nuh's avatar
Nuh 3 weeks ago
Nah, Rootstock is already getting used in Latin America without politics. Bitcoiners simply don't want to use Bitcoin, others will and they will be paying more fees to miners so they will become more relevant. The only way through this bullshit is just to use Rootstock for your needs and ignore the drama. The tragedy of Bitcoin politics is that everyone talking doesn't actually need anything to change. Those who do should just use Rootstock and pay fees there and as halvings go on, nature is going to heal. And of course the better way is what the OG sidechain paper and what Rootstock is already doing and going to do with BitVM; L1 gate withdrawals until L2 has enough work over the withdrawal claim + has no challenge with a fork with more work. You can ideally use validity proofs as well, and use hashrate on L2 to update the ZK program whenever you need to make a soft or hardfork, but I suspect that is not how things will work, because it is too complex, and an equivalent of PoWPeg in BitVM is good enough for long time. But if you make sidechain with very minimal consensus and ossify it, basically something like Bitcoin with GSR and written in Rust not C++, then maybe the validity proof thing is viable. Long story short, I am not worried neither about Paul nor Bitcoiners reactions, they can't get any more dysfunctional.
and now we have to do this song and dance of separating the idea of merge mined sidechains from paul's exact vision of how they should work
This guy sounds like he has his binky in his mouth still while he talks. I am sorry but why does he have that domain name !?!
meh. This is nothing new. There are literally thousands of networks of money - each with its own governance consensus - that don't care about my keys. Cryptographic ownership on the network(s) of money that I choose to recognize is only relevant to the extent that others make that same choice - regardless of any 'consensus' that voluntarily (or otherwise) make a separate choice. This has inherently always been the deal.
Also, Paul Storcz is a bit retarded, no offence. Said as much in a peer reviewed article, for what it’s worth!!!!!!
Default avatar
Hofer99 3 weeks ago
Let em. People also lined up for Rona vaxx and hawk tua coin and trump coin. You can't save everyone.
There's already ecash (XEC). It'd a BCH fork and then there is ecash on BTC. Couldn't have come up with a worse name.
Kendy's avatar
Kendy 3 weeks ago
Paul may get his face punched in Vegas
the axiom's avatar
the axiom 3 weeks ago
you're dumb he's not changing bitcoin, he's making a new coin bitcoin is unchangeable
the axiom's avatar
the axiom 3 weeks ago
that's a good idea would be good to see someone intelligent offer some pushback there was that ever tried?
Yeah, the social layer, and the sheep-like creatures that reside within it, have always been the obstacle to peace and prosperity.
The human factor is truly security's weakest link. — Kevin Mitnick, The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security
Ethan Hunt's avatar
Ethan Hunt 3 weeks ago
Paul can have fun playing with his not bitcoins
Based. Let's make this happen. He's said he'll go on *any* podcast, which implies he wont mind if you ask hard questions.
I'm bullish on ecash. I will sell all my BTC on day one blindly without even researching his hard fork
I can understand if people won’t sell their ecash. But seriously, who is going to buy that shit? If you know, please let me know. I know a seller ;-)
This allegation that Paul is hard forking Bitcoin under the name ecash and claiming Satoshi's pre-mined coins raises serious questions about protocol governance and asset rights. it matters because hard forks that redistribute funds without consensus threaten the foundational promise of immutable sound money. Credit to the one exposing this attempted seizure. image
ODELL's avatar ODELL
paul is hard forking bitcoin calling his fork ecash and stealing satoshi coin in the process image
View quoted note →
the axiom's avatar
the axiom 3 weeks ago
better than hard questions he needs to be faced with some real but honest and thoughtful pushback to his answers