The Bitcoin ecosystem is once again divided, with a controversy over "scaling + rule rewriting" brewing.

Paul Sztorc announced that a new hard fork network, eCash, will be launched this August, and users holding BTC can map their assets to the new chain on a 1:1 basis.
From a technical design perspective, this is not a simple copy of a fork:

The underlying architecture still relies on Bitcoin Core, continuing the SHA-256 algorithm.

The initial mining difficulty is lowered to attract miners to migrate quickly.

It introduces 7 "drivechains" layer-two networks, focusing on scaling and optional privacy features.

In other words, this is an experimental path that attempts to address scalability and privacy issues while "maintaining the Bitcoin framework."
But what truly sparks controversy is not the technology, but the rules—
It proposes a "reallocation" of part of Satoshi's approximately 1.1 million BTC, a concept that directly challenges Bitcoin's core consensus foundation.
Market disagreements quickly widened:

Supporters see this as a reactivation of long-dormant assets.

Opponents argue that this is a violation of Bitcoin ownership principles, even equating it to "unauthorized redistribution."

At its core, this incident is not about the fork itself, but a deeper question:
In a decentralized system, who has the authority to redefine the rules?
History has already proven—
Every fork is a split in values.
Follow me for ongoing analysis of Bitcoin ecosystem disagreements and underlying consensus battles.