On April 24, 2026, the world of Bitcoin seemed to be cut in two. On one side, developer Paul Sztorc announced: plans for a hard fork of Bitcoin in August 2026, launching a new chain named eCash based on a "replica" of the Bitcoin Core client code, continuing to use SHA-256/SHA-256d proof of work, and planning to deploy seven second-layer scaling networks called drivechains, while promising to generate an equal amount of eCash assets for existing Bitcoin holders at a 1:1 ratio. For an advocate who has promoted Drivechains (BIP300/301) for years but has never managed to activate it on the main chain, this felt more like taking an unaccepted proposal and starting anew.

On the other side, the miners presented a completely opposite stance. On the same day, the NASDAQ-listed mining company Bitdeer provided a straightforward yet shocking set of figures in a routine disclosure: as of that week, the company mined a total of 185.7 BTC, selling all of it within the same period, resulting in a net新增的持仓 of 0; more importantly, Bitdeer disclosed that its current Bitcoin holdings were 0 BTC—making it particularly rare in an industry where most mining companies would retain some Bitcoin as balance sheet reserves. This complete liquidation highlighted a profoundly conservative stance prioritizing cash flow, set against the more challenging operating environment post-halving, resembling a defensive self-protection measure.

The two pieces of news on the same day pulled the Bitcoin ecosystem toward two extremes: one side, the radical faction in terms of technology and narrative, attempted to add new leverage to Bitcoin through the eCash hard fork; on the other side, the conservative faction in terms of finance and risk emptied their BTC holdings to zero, retaining only easily deployable real-world cash. What future for Bitcoin do these forks and liquidations point to? Is it a struggle for "orthodoxy" rewriting that pulls away computing power and attention, or will the miners' zero holdings change the outside perception of Bitcoin's long-term value and safety margin? The fork window in August 2026 and the liquidation decision at this moment mark the starting point of this rift.

Fork Countdown: eCash Raises Expansion

In the memory of many long-time Bitcoin users, the name Paul Sztorc is almost synonymous with "Drivechains." Over the past few years, he has repeatedly promoted his scaling ideas in conferences, mailing lists, and forums—through BIP300/301, making the Bitcoin main chain like a "mother chain," hosting a number of sidechains below it to experiment with more radical features and financial strategies. However, this proposal has never secured formal activation on the main chain, with the hesitation of core developers and conservatives gradually pushing this long-time advocate onto another path: if he cannot convince the "orthodox," then he will create an orthodoxy of his own.

On April 24, 2026, Sztorc provided a concrete timeline: plans for a hard fork of Bitcoin in August 2026, with the new chain named eCash. It is not an experimental version written from scratch, but a "replica" based on the Bitcoin Core client code, transferring decades of polished main chain code over, aiming to lower the technical barriers for participants. At the consensus layer, eCash continues to use SHA-256/SHA-256d proof of work algorithm, compatible with Bitcoin mining algorithms, making the future oscillation of computing power between the two chains a real and sensitive option.

Sztorc directly incorporated his long-standing scaling advocacy into the blueprints for the new chain: eCash plans to host seven second-layer scaling networks called drivechains on the chain. These are designed to be the "experimental ground" and "overflow pool" for the new chain, with the main chain only responsible for settlement and security, while new features, assets, and applications will be pushed onto these second-layer networks to carry them. However, the current publicly available information lacks authoritative and detailed descriptions of the names, permission boundaries, and specific functions of these seven drivechains, with key technical and allocation issues such as replay protection and how to handle Satoshi-related addresses (including the so-called Patoshi pattern) still unresolved; the technological outline of the new chain remains at a rough sketch stage.

What truly touches the nerves of Bitcoin holders is the asset mapping arrangement. According to current public statements, eCash plans to generate eCash assets for all existing Bitcoin holders at a 1:1 ratio—each 1 BTC held corresponds to generating 1 eCash, like an automatically distributed "forked equity." The specific method of claiming, snapshot rules, and whether proactive claims are necessary have not yet been fully disclosed; nevertheless, this promise means: as long as you currently hold BTC, you inherently have a claim to the new chain on the timeline of the fork in August.

For those insisting on holding Bitcoin long-term, this setting of "automatically receiving new chain tokens for old chain assets" is itself a tempting option; for developers, miners, exchanges, and custodians, the months from April 24 to August represent a countdown to determine whether this option is worth expending energy, computing power, and compliance costs to redeem.

Consensus Rift Concerns: Will Bitcoin Split Again?

The last time Bitcoin truly "divorced" was in 2017. That hard fork represented by Bitcoin Cash violently split developers, miners, businesses, and holders, who were originally united on the same timeline, into two camps: one side insisting that "the original chain is Bitcoin," while the other sought to carry the vision of "larger blocks, faster payments" with the new chain. The result was evident on the chain—a short-term rift in community stances, with a noticeable diversion of computing power, which only reformed a new balance after some time.

The emergence of eCash cannot help but evoke this historical memory. The difference is that this time, the focus of the controversy is no longer block size, but the Drivechains concept pushed by Paul Sztorc for many years, which has never managed to activate on the main chain: he chose to announce on April 24, 2026, that he would bundle this entire set of designs with a hard fork in August into a new chain named eCash, while promising to generate eCash assets for existing Bitcoin holders at a 1:1 ratio. For many, this is not merely a technical proposal but a new chain directly questioning the old problem—"what constitutes orthodoxy in the Bitcoin route?"

From an underlying architecture perspective, this bifurcation is not a case of "starting anew," but rather resembles the "falling out of brother disciples": eCash is built on a "replica" of the Bitcoin Core client code, using the same SHA-256/SHA-256d proof of work algorithm. This means it is highly homologous to the main chain in terms of mining algorithms and code foundations, naturally possessing the capacity to compete for the same batch of mining power. For miners, this will create a practical revenue game: under the same algorithm, computing power can move between the two chains with almost no friction, leaning towards whichever side offers better block rewards and market valuations.

This structural homogeneity imbues security concerns from the outset with a zero-sum quality. For eCash to attract sufficient computing power to support its own security, it will inevitably have to compete to some extent for miners' attention and electricity budgets with the Bitcoin main chain; conversely, even if the main chain's size and inertia are undeniably larger, any loosening of marginal computing power could be magnified by the security faction as evidence of "increased attack surfaces" and "51% risk uplift." The 2017 attitude of "first splitting, then calculating" could easily be reignited in this context.

What truly obscures the situation is the large information void surrounding eCash's design, particularly concentrated on several key sensitive points.

The first is replay protection. For a hard fork based on Bitcoin Core code, whether to introduce replay protection at the protocol level and how to design it is a "life-or-death" issue that all exchanges, wallets, and custodians must clarify before going live. Currently, public information does not provide an authoritative conclusion on whether eCash possesses replay protection, meaning that, in the worst-case scenario, whether the same transaction could potentially be “simultaneously valid” on the two chains remains an unresolved risk hypothesis. The lack of a clear answer can slow the decision-making of the infrastructure: who would be willing to rashly open technical interfaces for a number of assets before the rules are clearly defined?

The second is the conflict of brand and identity recognition. There is a single source mentioning that the eCash brand might conflict with the existing XEC project in terms of trademarks; this claim is currently a report of contested validity rather than an established fact. But even mere rumors are enough to elevate the question of "who is qualified to inherit a name, a narrative" to the surface—when a new chain deliberately aligns closely with the Bitcoin world through name, code, and asset mapping, the main chain community's sensitivity to the boundaries between "free riding" and "legitimate innovation" will drastically increase.

The third involves the issue of "Satoshi addresses," which holds symbolic significance far greater than technical significance. Currently, public information does not provide authoritative information on how eCash will handle Satoshi-related addresses (including the so-called Patoshi pattern) and also lacks public conclusions on whether there will be special rules for these assets on the new chain. For those who view Satoshi's early block creations as a kind of spiritual totem, this is not an issue to be taken lightly: once the new chain makes any handling choices different from the main chain in this respect, it will be interpreted as a value declaration, not merely a minor adjustment to the distribution mechanism.

A hard fork is never just a technical divergence, but also a reordering of consensus narratives. In 2017, Bitcoin was forced to answer the question "which chain is Bitcoin" through actions, not forum quarrels, under the pressures of real block creation and migration of computing power. Now, with eCash explicitly pinned on the timeline for August 2026, the possibility of this "divorce" has become concrete: those information voids that remain unfilled—whether replay protection exists, the delineation of brand boundaries, and the handling of symbolic addresses—are becoming the new starting points for fractures, forcing every participant to decide which historical narrative they align with in the coming months.

The Moment of Miner Liquidation: 185 Bitcoins Sold

While the developer camp was still rehearsing narratives for the chain split months away, on the computing power side, a completely different option had already emerged. On April 24, on the same timeline, Bitdeer submitted an operation update that seemed plain at first glance, yet numerically extracted itself from the long-term holder camp of Bitcoin.

As of the week ending April 24, 2026, Bitdeer mined 185.7 BTC. During the same week, all of these 185.7 BTC were sold—a net新增的持仓 of 0. More crucially, Bitdeer simultaneously disclosed that their current Bitcoin holdings were 0 BTC—not "reducing positions," not "lowering exposure," but a clean and neat zero holding state.

For a company centered on mining, these figures are particularly stark. The majority of companies in the industry tend to leave some BTC on the balance sheet as inventory and chips: on one hand to cope with future price fluctuations, and on the other hand to convey a "long-term stance connected to the network" to shareholders. In this practice, Bitdeer chose not to retain the new production from that week or historical inventory, opting to clear its holdings to 0—a practice quite rare in the industry.

Looking back, this is the environment following the halving—block rewards have been cut in half, the income per unit of computing power has been compressed, while electricity costs, equipment depreciation, and operational salaries do not decrease due to adjustments in protocol parameters. For a NASDAQ-listed company, this means every line on the cash flow statement becomes sharper: quarterly reports need to explain where profits come from, and the board of directors wants to see cash that can be freely allocated, rather than volatile, hard-to-valuate balance sheet assets.

Under such constraints, Bitdeer's choice was pushed to the extreme: viewing mining as a purely cash flow business, BTC merely as an intermediary product, shortening the time lag between block creation and monetization. The 185.7 BTC all sold that week, with holdings cleared to zero, no longer play the role of inventory assets, but are fully converted into cash that can pay electricity bills, renew spaces, and appease shareholders.

On one side, developers attempted to leverage Bitcoin narratives through a hard fork, while on the other side, representatives of miners such as Bitdeer were telling the market with zero holdings: under the operational pressures post-halving, which chain to stand with and what story to tell can wait; cash flow is the only thing that needs to be clearly articulated at present.

Creating a New Chain and Selling Old Coins: The Ecosystem Split into Two Ends

On the same day, two hands of the Bitcoin ecosystem made completely opposite moves: one hand pulled the protocol forward, attempting to make the story bigger with a new chain called eCash; the other hand withdrew assets, selling all 185.7 BTC produced on the chain and clearing the balance to zero. This is not two parallel worlds, but rather the same machinery reacting with "leverage" on one side and "de-leveraging" on the other.

Standing on the side of developers, this hard fork seems more like a premeditated leveraging act. For the past few years, Paul Sztorc's promotion of Drivechains (BIP300/301) has not landed on the main chain; on April 24, he simply announced he would "materialize" his plan into a new chain: eCash through a hard fork in August 2026. It reuses a replica of the Bitcoin Core client code, utilizing the same SHA-256/SHA-256d proof of work algorithm, layering ambition onto a familiar framework—planning seven drivechains while promising stronger scalability and functionality; concurrently throwing in the 1:1 asset mapping chips, generating an equal amount of eCash for every existing BTC held. For developers, this represents stacking a new narrative on the same UTXO history: no need to abandon the Bitcoin ledger, yet placing all previously unaccepted designs in one shot on another timeline.

Conversely, the extreme contraction from Bitdeer within the miner camp stands out. As a NASDAQ-listed company, its operation data disclosed on the same day stated clearly: mined 185.7 BTC that week, sold all that week, current Bitcoin holdings at 0. Most mining companies in the industry tend to retain a certain amount of BTC on their balance sheets, but Bitdeer's choice is to completely extract itself from "the bullish-bearish" narrative: on-chain production is no longer an inventory that can repeatedly tell valuation stories, but merely quickly converted into cash flow for paying electricity, maintaining machine operations, and soothing shareholders. This stands as another form of "de-leveraging"—prioritizing the cutting of all exposures unrelated to computing power in the face of post-halving pressures.

On the same ecosystem chain, the roles at both ends have thus been pulled apart:
● The developer camp is vying for design rights and narrative rights through eCash. Their chips include a set of more radical protocol parameters and seven drivechains yet to be named, a promise of 1:1 new chain assets for all BTC holders, and a parallel chain still using the SHA-256 algorithm that could potentially rearrange the landscape of computing power.
● The miners' camp, on the other hand, refers to Bitdeer's financial report for a frame of reference: in a period where profit margins are compressed, which chain’s philosophy looks prettier and which scaling path is more elegant can all be postponed in favor of focusing on operational realities; machines need to keep running, and financial reports must satisfy exchanges—cash flow is the only thing that can be directly written into quarterly guidance.
● Investors find themselves stuck in the middle, passively holding the right to stand on one side. The eCash commitment to 1:1 mapping for all Bitcoin holders means that whether they are long-term holders or weekly production miners like Bitdeer who immediately liquidate, as long as they held BTC before the fork, they will automatically have an additional eCash balance on their books. The next choice is whether to treat it as a line item to be ignored or as a future bet worth taking a risk on.

The misalignment of interests begins to turn into potential team splits from here.

For developers, the main chain's conservative consensus has long failed to embrace Drivechains, providing eCash with an opportunity to "bypass main chain scrutiny": on the new chain, parameters can be more radical, second layers can be directly written into the roadmap, and the teams involved in early construction are more likely to form centers of technology and community. Supporting eCash signifies not just a stance on a scaling plan but a redistribution claim over "who defines the Bitcoin narrative."

For miners, computing power is the real voting chip they possess. Since eCash shares the SHA-256 algorithm with Bitcoin, it means the same batch of mining machines can theoretically flow between the two chains. When the fork window in August 2026 opens, miners will face a very real question: should they continue to allocate more computing power to the main chain or withdraw a portion to try for "early dividends" on the new chain? Within their decision-making models, factors such as whether a new chain can provide a sufficiently clear revenue forecast, whether there are enough exchanges and custodians cooperating, and whether technical details are solid enough for risk departments to approve will all be consolidated into the same table—yet, currently, those factors remain in the expectation game phase.

Companies like Bitdeer have unique weight on this table. On one hand, they naturally possess the capability to move computing power between the two chains; on the other hand, they currently choose to lock themselves into a "zero BTC" position on the asset side. Under the design of eCash's 1:1 mapping, even while maintaining this zero holding stance, they still have the opportunity at the moment of the fork to obtain accounting records of new chain assets based on historical production, without having to bear extra long-term exposure. The real choice may actually lie in the distribution of computing power: whether to bet all devices on the certainty of the main chain or dedicate some machines to provide security for eCash, securing a place in the new narrative.

For investors, especially those long-term participants already holding BTC, their "alignment" is neither reflected in the code nor in the toggling of mining machines, but through a series of simple actions following the fork: whether to claim eCash, whether to allocate liquidity, and whether to incorporate it into their asset portfolio. Currently, the market lacks systematic pricing and opinion feedback on eCash and Bitdeer's zero holding, and there are not enough public comments pointing in one direction, causing each action to resemble dropping a nail on a map that has yet to be properly charted.

Thus, one chain has been split into two directions: on one end are developers trying to amplify Bitcoin narratives and leverage protocols through eCash, while on the other end are miners de-leveraging through BTC liquidation and tightly holding cash flow. Sandwiched in between is the upcoming period of months where computing power, assets, and narrative power are about to be realigned—also marking a countdown for all participants to reiterate their positions between the main chain and the new chain.

August Fork Approaches: How Will Miners and Capital Navigate?

If we treat April 24, 2026, as a milestone, on one side, Paul Sztorc is packaging the long-unheld Drivechains proposal into eCash, pinning the new battleground to the August hard fork; on the other side, NASDAQ-listed miner Bitdeer mined 185.7 BTC that same week and sold all, clearing its balance to zero. When these two matters converge, they leave the same question mark over Bitcoin's long-term narrative and security boundaries: is this chain becoming an increasingly "de-variant" digital gold, or a commercial infrastructure that could be reshuffled at any moment by computing power and cash flow?

Narratively, eCash represents the path of "protocol leveraging." It directly replicates the Bitcoin Core client code, utilizes the SHA-256/SHA-256d algorithm, promises to generate eCash equal to 1:1 mapping for each BTC, and plans seven second-layer networks called drivechains—essentially telling developers and holders: if the main chain is unwilling to make strides on BIP300/301, let’s get it all done on a new chain. The issue, however, is that critical technical details surrounding replay protection, handling of Patoshi addresses, and specific drivechain functions remain void and filled with contradicting rumors; even the potential trademark conflicts between eCash and existing XEC projects are still merely unverified reports from single sources. This information asymmetry will continue to disrupt the old narrative of "solidifying the main chain—cautious innovation" for Bitcoin over the next few months.

On the other end, Bitdeer's zero holdings evoke concerns regarding security and incentive structures. In the industry, most mining companies will retain a certain amount of BTC on their balance sheets; however, Bitdeer's stance, as revealed, is simply to mine what they dig and sell as much. This extreme "cash flow priority" stance does not directly weaken network computing power, but it challenges a long-accepted premise: Are miners still willing to "bet" on network security with their asset sheets and time? If zero holdings gradually shift from anomalies to an acceptable strategy, network security may increasingly rely on real-time arithmetic between electricity costs and coin prices, rather than the long-term bonding of miners to the protocol, which in turn could affect market psychological pricing of safety margins.

The real turning point lies ahead of August. That will be the designated hard fork window for eCash, as well as the time frame when developers, miners, exchanges, custodians, and regular holders must make choices. In the coming months, at least three signal types are worth monitoring:

● Developer and community movements: Who is committing code and energy to eCash, who is publicly opposing or calling for caution; the update pace of the Bitcoin Core codebase and eCash node software; and whether technical disputes surrounding replay protection, Patoshi addresses, and specific functionalities of drivechains can be clearly resolved in public channels. If key issues remain ambiguous by August, this in itself will be a form of risk pricing.

● Direction of computing power and infrastructure: Whether large mining pools and companies declare their intent to mine solely on the main chain or retain options for eCash's computing power allocation; whether exchanges and custodians announce support for eCash's asset mapping and trading, or opt for avoidance. The current lack of authoritative major institution statements and systematic market data means who stands firm and who delays decisions will itself become a vital indicator of sentiment and resource direction.

● Mining companies' holding and financial strategies: Will Bitdeer maintain zero holdings, or will they start accumulating BTC again in future reports; will other publicly listed miners follow suit by increasing their sales ratios, reducing self-holding, or publicly emphasizing “high ratios of holding” for hedging. Each company's disclosed data will further rewrite the invisible curve of "how miners view Bitcoin's long-term value."

For ordinary investors and industry practitioners, the biggest hidden danger lies not in a single point event but in the overlay of two uncertainties: one is the technical fork risks introduced by eCash, concerning protocol rules, asset mapping, and potential replay issues; the other is the financial pressures and holding strategy changes represented by miners like Bitdeer, concerning computing power, selling pressure, and security incentives. If these two lines collide around August—say, key technical details are still unresolved while mining companies generally tighten their balance sheets—the market will face not a simple choice of “more forked chains,” but a comprehensive reevaluation of the entire security and narrative framework.

This suggests that during the upcoming rare "months of interim," any oversimplified optimistic or pessimistic conclusions would be premature. A more practical approach is to regard August 2026 as a systematic event clearly marked on the calendar: think ahead about positioning for your computing power, assets, products, and business if the technical paths and participant lists of the main chain and eCash gradually become clear; also, be prepared to accept another possibility—that when that day truly arrives, many critical issues may still remain unanswered, while Bitcoin has already been pushed into a new cycle shaped by both forking and liquidation.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。