- Популярные видео
- Авто
- Видео-блоги
- ДТП, аварии
- Для маленьких
- Еда, напитки
- Животные
- Закон и право
- Знаменитости
- Игры
- Искусство
- Комедии
- Красота, мода
- Кулинария, рецепты
- Люди
- Мото
- Музыка
- Мультфильмы
- Наука, технологии
- Новости
- Образование
- Политика
- Праздники
- Приколы
- Природа
- Происшествия
- Путешествия
- Развлечения
- Ржач
- Семья
- Сериалы
- Спорт
- Стиль жизни
- ТВ передачи
- Танцы
- Технологии
- Товары
- Ужасы
- Фильмы
- Шоу-бизнес
- Юмор
Bitcoin's 'hazardous' airdrop: Why developers are warning against Paul Sztorc’s eCash fork
Developers and industry figures say the eCash proposal introduces user risk, uneven distribution and philosophical tension.
Paul Sztorc’s proposed eCash fork has been framed as a battle over Bitcoin’s principles. But among developers and infrastructure builders, a different interpretation is taking hold.
This isn’t really a Bitcoin fork, they argue. It’s an airdrop — and a potentially hazardous one.
“I’m firmly against Paul’s fork, but not because it represents a ‘hostile Bitcoin hard fork,’ as some claim,” said Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, told CoinDesk in an email. “eCash is a new blockchain…It is not directly taking anything away from bitcoin holders.”
That distinction cuts through much of the early backlash. Unlike past splits that attempted to carry the Bitcoin name or compete for hashpower, eCash is structurally closer to a new token being airdropped to existing bitcoin holders.
But for Lerner and others, that framing shifts the concern rather than resolves it.
Airdrops are common across crypto. In Bitcoin, they are rare — and often messy.
Lerner argues that distributing eCash based on Bitcoin’s UTXO set — the collection of “unspent transaction outputs,” essentially the chunks of bitcoin that make up user balances — exposes users to avoidable operational risk, particularly if they try to claim the tokens.
“Airdropping to UTXO owners does not help bitcoiners and instead exposes them to significant risk,” he said, pointing to the need for users to move funds out of cold storage and interact with unfamiliar software.
That risk is compounded by the lack of full replay protection between the two chains. Without a clean separation, transactions intended for Bitcoin could inadvertently affect funds on the eCash network, or vice versa.
Dan Held, a Bitcoin entrepreneur, framed it more bluntly: “Reallocating Satoshi’s coins is shock value marketing, and the no-replay protection makes it quite hazardous to redeem.”
No-replay protection could allows a valid, signed transaction from the hard fork to be maliciously broadcast and accepted on another chain. This causes identical, unwanted transactions on both networks, leading to accidental loss of funds. It occurs when two chains share the same transaction format.
Beyond security concerns, the distribution itself is being questioned.
Because Bitcoin ownership is often intermediated by exchanges, custodians and institutional platforms, the entity controlling private keys is not always the economic owner of the coins.
“The custodians controlling UTXO keys are often not the rightful economic owners,” Lerner said. “This places users who hold bitcoin through custodians at a disadvantage.”
In practice, that means some users may never receive eCash at all, while others may take on new risks to access it. For systems built on top of Bitcoin — including sidechains, like Rootstock, and federated custody networks — the situation becomes even more complex, potentially requiring coordination or upgrades to safely split coins across chains.
Lerner also criticized the project’s funding model, which allocates a portion of Satoshi-linked coins on the new chain to early investors, calling it “morally objectionable and unnecessary.”
For others, the objection goes beyond mechanics.
Jay Polack, head of strategy at Bitcoin sidechain VerifiedX, sees the proposal as part of a broader category of attempts to...
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/05/02/bitcoin-s-hazardous-airdrop-why-developers-are-warning-against-paul-sztorc-s-ecash-fork
#crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #cryptocurrency #news #blockchain #litecoin #cryptonews #cryptonewstoday #cryptoworld #cryptonewstoday ***NOT FINANCIAL, LEGAL, OR TAX ADVICE! JUST OPINION! I AM NOT AN EXPERT! I DO NOT GUARANTEE A PARTICULAR OUTCOME I HAVE NO INSIDE KNOWLEDGE! YOU NEED TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS! THIS IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT!
This information is what was found publicly on the internet. This information could’ve been doctored or misrepresented by the internet. All information is meant for public awareness and is public domain. This information is not intended to slander harm or defame any of the actors involved but to show what was said through their social media accounts. Please take this information and do your own research.
bitcoin, blockchain, crypto, cryptocurrency, altcoin, investment, ethereum, bitcoin crash, xrp, cardano, ripple
Видео Bitcoin's 'hazardous' airdrop: Why developers are warning against Paul Sztorc’s eCash fork канала Crypto World Daily
Paul Sztorc’s proposed eCash fork has been framed as a battle over Bitcoin’s principles. But among developers and infrastructure builders, a different interpretation is taking hold.
This isn’t really a Bitcoin fork, they argue. It’s an airdrop — and a potentially hazardous one.
“I’m firmly against Paul’s fork, but not because it represents a ‘hostile Bitcoin hard fork,’ as some claim,” said Sergio Lerner, co-founder of Rootstock Labs, told CoinDesk in an email. “eCash is a new blockchain…It is not directly taking anything away from bitcoin holders.”
That distinction cuts through much of the early backlash. Unlike past splits that attempted to carry the Bitcoin name or compete for hashpower, eCash is structurally closer to a new token being airdropped to existing bitcoin holders.
But for Lerner and others, that framing shifts the concern rather than resolves it.
Airdrops are common across crypto. In Bitcoin, they are rare — and often messy.
Lerner argues that distributing eCash based on Bitcoin’s UTXO set — the collection of “unspent transaction outputs,” essentially the chunks of bitcoin that make up user balances — exposes users to avoidable operational risk, particularly if they try to claim the tokens.
“Airdropping to UTXO owners does not help bitcoiners and instead exposes them to significant risk,” he said, pointing to the need for users to move funds out of cold storage and interact with unfamiliar software.
That risk is compounded by the lack of full replay protection between the two chains. Without a clean separation, transactions intended for Bitcoin could inadvertently affect funds on the eCash network, or vice versa.
Dan Held, a Bitcoin entrepreneur, framed it more bluntly: “Reallocating Satoshi’s coins is shock value marketing, and the no-replay protection makes it quite hazardous to redeem.”
No-replay protection could allows a valid, signed transaction from the hard fork to be maliciously broadcast and accepted on another chain. This causes identical, unwanted transactions on both networks, leading to accidental loss of funds. It occurs when two chains share the same transaction format.
Beyond security concerns, the distribution itself is being questioned.
Because Bitcoin ownership is often intermediated by exchanges, custodians and institutional platforms, the entity controlling private keys is not always the economic owner of the coins.
“The custodians controlling UTXO keys are often not the rightful economic owners,” Lerner said. “This places users who hold bitcoin through custodians at a disadvantage.”
In practice, that means some users may never receive eCash at all, while others may take on new risks to access it. For systems built on top of Bitcoin — including sidechains, like Rootstock, and federated custody networks — the situation becomes even more complex, potentially requiring coordination or upgrades to safely split coins across chains.
Lerner also criticized the project’s funding model, which allocates a portion of Satoshi-linked coins on the new chain to early investors, calling it “morally objectionable and unnecessary.”
For others, the objection goes beyond mechanics.
Jay Polack, head of strategy at Bitcoin sidechain VerifiedX, sees the proposal as part of a broader category of attempts to...
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/05/02/bitcoin-s-hazardous-airdrop-why-developers-are-warning-against-paul-sztorc-s-ecash-fork
#crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #cryptocurrency #news #blockchain #litecoin #cryptonews #cryptonewstoday #cryptoworld #cryptonewstoday ***NOT FINANCIAL, LEGAL, OR TAX ADVICE! JUST OPINION! I AM NOT AN EXPERT! I DO NOT GUARANTEE A PARTICULAR OUTCOME I HAVE NO INSIDE KNOWLEDGE! YOU NEED TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS! THIS IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT!
This information is what was found publicly on the internet. This information could’ve been doctored or misrepresented by the internet. All information is meant for public awareness and is public domain. This information is not intended to slander harm or defame any of the actors involved but to show what was said through their social media accounts. Please take this information and do your own research.
bitcoin, blockchain, crypto, cryptocurrency, altcoin, investment, ethereum, bitcoin crash, xrp, cardano, ripple
Видео Bitcoin's 'hazardous' airdrop: Why developers are warning against Paul Sztorc’s eCash fork канала Crypto World Daily
crypto news crypto news today more crypto online cryptocurrency crypto news investing bitcoin bitcoin news bitcoin news today bitcoin today btc news ethereum ethereum news ethereum news today ethereum price altcoin news cryptocurrency news crypto world crypto world daily bitcoin's 'hazardous' airdrop: why developers are warning against paul sztorc’s ecash fork bitcoin price bitcoin price prediction ethereum today
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
16 ч. 17 мин. назад
00:05:25
Другие видео канала




















