eCash — Bitcoin Hardfork · August 21, 2026
Bitcoin hardfork activating drivechains. Every BTC holder receives eCash 1:1 on fork day.
is a really good idea and very necessary in the current state of the world.
I really hope it gets a chance to fulfill its purpose.
Login to reply
Replies (56)
Please let's add OP_CAT and OP_CCV CUSF so we can try things that may be better than Drivechains https://docs.rsk.co/SyncChain_WP.pdf
I wish it the best, but I fear it'll flop, and be the final nail in the coffin for Drivechains 🙁
He has been a drivechain lover since forever
Such a knob, kike
What does this hard fork do?
😅
Paul Sztorc has mentioned that he would probably support activating these things through CUSF on eCash. I haven't looked into the Rust Drivechain CUSF implementation, but I assume that for OP_CAT it should be much simpler, am I right?
OP_CCV I have no idea.
So we’re all just gonna run to Paul’s fork and that becomes the new bitcoin?
The odds of it failing are definitely much bigger than those of it succeeding, not even Paul denies that.
But what do we lose by trying? Drivechain has zero chance of being activated on Bitcoin today anyway.
If eCash gets even a little bit of usage that may be enough to test Drivechain with real money and convince miners to MASF it into Bitcoin (Core will never do it, but CUSF solves that).
I already implemented OP_CCV and OP_CAT (and OP_CSFS) in [SAKE](https://github.com/nuhvi/sake) so if CUSF isn't a shit show, it should be easy to reuse that code.
But we need to start that work early or we end up with another fuckin chain where soft forking is impossible 😅😅😅
It’s in their website. 2 min read.
Not convinced.
In fact, all the opcodes in SAKE are stateless, meaning they don't need to store any information about the Blockchain, you can run the transaction validation in CPU with no I/O, so you should have a nicer time implementing a CUSF than Drivechains.
I will look into the CUSF API and see if I can just import SAKE and use it as is!
Why didn’t he chose the classical ICO way with a fresh new coin ?
And also how such a MASF wouldn’t be purely a 51% attack risking to harm bitfoin more than solving any problem we may supposedly have ?
TLDR?
Of course it will flop. I would be minblown otherwise. Doesn’t this guy knows that 99% of Bitcoin users never heard about drivechains or him at all, and absolutely don’t need it ? It feels like a pure egocentric delirium from a lost bratty individual…seriously
In which world a "classical ICO" would be a better idea? Why would you even consider that?
In which sense a MASF is equivalent to a 51% attack? A 51% attack is when a coalition of evil miners decide to revert transactions in order to steal things, a MASF is just activating an optional soft-fork.
TLDR from my point of view that of course fiatjaf doesn’t share: A guy is launching a new shitcoin to test things on it and then convince bitcoin miners to later perform a 51% attack on bitfoin
> Focus on users.
> Define users as: those who pay transaction fees to miners.
> In contrast, non-users are: developers, miners, investors, and media personalities.
> In the long run, users win. Non-users are parasites who must be kept at bay (when necessary).
> Satoshi Half-Airdrop – We give half, of Satoshi’s “patoshi” coins (about 550k of 1.1 M) – to our investors and supporters.
> How do you plan to dethrone BTC?
> Sabotage BTC
A psychopathic grift, I'll enjoy watching it crash and burn.
It's purpose is to scam, just like any other shitcoin. I hope it dies to 0 on launch day 🫥
I don’t know people have been doing it forever so I guess they had reasons to do it when it came to raise funds and gain attention, and Paul seems also concerned by “financing” things so…
From what I understand it feels to me that the actual difference between a MASF and an 51% attack is more on the percentage of hashrate you gather from miners being closer of 100 than 50%. At the end of the day you impose you will on others and now censor some legacy txs, or do shit that people using bitcoin don’t want at all. It’s not just about trying to double spend.
Stealing coins is the main problem with it, but we do need to fork to progress. This is not the way.
"Satoshi Half-Airdrop – We give half, of Satoshi’s “patoshi” coins (about 550k of 1.1 M) – to our investors and supporters"
PoW coin with premine. Takes me back to good old btt days :D
If they did the same thing except stealing satoshi coins for themselves, the fork would have much higher chance to succeed.
This not only discredits the fork for many (most?) people but also adds instant sell pressure from insiders.
creates a new shitcoin
No thanks
Too much ego
🫂
> airdrop
And for that reason, I’m out.
does it have to be BIP-300 though? there are other opcodes that help make sidechains and are also useful for other things too
Would have a fork that doesn't honour most people's UTXOs (except Patoshi) be better? How or why? The whole point is that Bitcoiners want to try Drivechains and other SoftForks ... If Bitcoiners don't have UTXOs there already, what is the point, how is that different from Litecoin?
We can make a CUSF for Script Army Knife and it should be simpler than CUSF for Drivechains... But we need miners to run that code.
> Satoshi Half-Airdrop – We give half, of Satoshi’s “patoshi” coins (about 550k of 1.1 M) – to our investors and supporters.
The “to our investors and supporters” is the ridiculous part.
But if we’re redistributing money, let’s take all of Sayler’s while we’re at it. I don’t want to live in a world where he is the god emperor.
If we know Saylor addresses that would be funny yes. But I don't have much sympathy towards Satoshi here, he gets more coins for no work, and if he is still alive and happy with Bitcoin situation with no softforks then why would he care about a fork that is designed to do the things he clearly doesn't care about?
The people paying for the work to develop and incentivize and market the fork should be rewarded for daring to demonstrate to miners they need to fuckin wake up.
I don't get any of these coins for the record, I am just saying
yeah and it doesn't need to be packaged as a new currency AND a coin redistribution AND a blocksize decrease... the way paul has packaged everything, it's too much all at once and he's not dumb he knows that. what he's doing is just a stunt to direct community attention onto a class of scaling method
No I mean try that CUSF on eCash... I am not in the mood to beg Bitcoin miners to support a soft fork that is entirely in their best interest... It is soul crushing to deal with that. I would rather play on the fork instead, at least there is some upside in the form of fun and chaos, instead of just apathy
paul's fork should remove the redistribution and add permanent BIP-110 and keep the blocksize decrease. it would be hilarious
@fiatjaf please convince him to do it
I don't yet have an opinion about the fork, but I agree with that, It seems a pure self pay trick, without any benefit for the project/community (minus the possible marketing investment they will able to do).
There would be no fork in that case, because there would be no money to pay for all the initial development work the sidechains need and whatnot.
Do you know how much money is poured into developing Bitcoin Core as well as grants for tons of other useless projects every year?
If eCash received 10% of that they get wouldn't have the need to sell some coins to fund their bootstrapping operation. But of course they would never get that since it's not a Bitcoin project, which is understandable.
But then somehow when they try to use the fact that they're not a Bitcoin project and transparently sell some newly-generated coins -- on a new blockchain that isn't Bitcoin -- suddenly they are stealing?
If you exchange moneros for bitcoin and you also revive bitcoin airdrops in church or at a casino, but you don't remember how much of each in your bitcoin wallet... It's quite good the government will have to believe its all airdrop...
You sir are wasted potential. Muted because gayness.
That’s what I thought but is there any rational that makes sense? Like if you squint real hard
It takes one to know one. Hey there gay lord. We bow to your excellence.
No thanks
I’m ok with robin hooding some satoshi money. But they should honestly airdrop an even amount to anyone that wants some. Incentivize normies to use their network.
Given the amount of work that I and many others do for free (because we have a vision and believe in that vision and want to better the world), I do not understand paying investors. I just never will.
Dayumn
Lol
But now we are talking about dev and community fund on top of the UTXOs they already get. Fine. But investora are how do the same people could get any money before that, also no body said these tokens are only for investors, Paul can give them to anyone who is helpful
Yerp, and that will cause another fork, splitting the few who would get behind the paul-fork
electronic gold is centralized and therefore easy to attack
bitcoin must be a peer to peer electronic cash system
View quoted note →
abstract
Bitcoin Deposits: A Layer 2 Scaling Protocol
Thats the spirit!
We're going to steal half of Satoshi's coins ...
Yeah, whose coins are next? You know that once that starts, there's always the temptation to do it again.
I’m really hoping this is sarcastic….
thought april 1st was weeks ago
Ciertamente es necesario. Si tiene razón y espero que no la tenga muchos seremos tarject objetives.