Paul Sztorc is out with an announcement this morning that he is creating a new Bitcoin fork called eCash (and wow! how did he get ecash.com?)

Here's some more details from his X announcement:

Our L1 Node...

• is a near-copy of Bitcoin Core.
• is Sha256d mined.
• forks via a one-time difficulty-reset -- to its minimum value. (So, mining will be crazy at first.)
• Yes, we will change the seed nodes, the name, the network magic, etc.

Codewise, the L1 will remain compatible with Bitcoin Core:

• We will continue to merge their changes (even the bad ones).
• The L1 will activate Bip300/301 via CUSF -- the core untouched soft fork. So, no lines of code will be changed, on the L1.
• The activation client will be published periodically (link below).
• We will do several bug bounty contests this summer.
• The client will be frozen 30 days prior to the fork.

And, of course: drivechains:

Yes, there will be Drivechains:

• We have 7 in developement right now.
• Users can also submit their own.
• Drivechain is a vision of "competing L2s" -- this avoids the "dev capture" problem.
• These L2s are all Merged Mined. Miners automatically get free $.
• Our L2s are already capable of planetary scale, and onboarding 8 billion users.
• We also have a zCash-like L2, with strong privacy.
• Other L2s: Truthcoin (Prediction Markets), CoinShift (Decentralized Exchange), BitAssets (NFT etc), BitNames (Identity), Photon (Quantum Resistant).

Sztorc draws these distinctions with the BCH fork:

Unlike BCH (the 2017 fork):

• There is no "Bitcoin" in the name. New name, new brand.
• You are getting advanced warning (4 months).
• We are replaying all txns (at first). We will release a coin-splitter tool.
• This is a permanent & sustainable fix to Bitcoin's problems (instead of a 1 MB to 8 MB temporary fix).
• Back in 2017, the BTC tech stack was strong, and expectations for Lightning were strong. Today, it is the reverse.

Here's a screenshot of the ecash.com webpage:

Here are a few details from their FAQ:

Which exchanges will support this coin?

First, we do not need any exchanges to “list” it at all. Our software allows you to swap eCash for a number of existing coins (BTC, LTC, XMR, USDT). So, you can first use an exchange to buy BTC, and then swap it cryptographically for eCash.

Second, our project's L1 is a clone of Bitcoin Core. So it should be very easy for exchanges to use.

Third, we are a hard fork. So, any user with BTC on an exchange (at the time of the fork), will suddenly also “own” eCash. But this eCash will be credited to the exchange. This puts the exchange in an awkward position: either the exchange will “steal” this money for themselves (not likely), or they will credit their users. The easiest way for them to credit their users, is to just list the coin.

Fourth, our hardfork uses “full transaction replay”. Meaning: even after the two chains split apart, 99% of the new txns will be “replayed” (since they are valid on both networks). For regular users this is harmless. But for exchanges, it may be illegal – when a user withdraws BTC, exchanges might accidentally send them an equal amount of eCash (without realizing it). Our software makes it easy to control this – but if the exchange is already going to integrate with our software, and track it in their accounting system, then they may decide to just list the coin. (Especially if other exchanges have already listed it.)

But won't the hashrate be low? How do you prevent a 51% attack (from BTC miners, for example)?

Several reasons:

Notably, BitcoinSV was never 51% attacked. Even though Bitcoiners hated it and its hashrate was very low (less than 0.5%).

When the network is young, users are more forgiving of “checkpointing”. (After all, the creation of the network is itself a checkpoint.) The possibility of checkpointing, serves as an effective deterrent.

Such an attack would draw more attention to the project (ie, the Streisand Effect).

BTC miners are hard to wrangle. Already they are too lazy to act in their own financial interest. So why would they suddenly act in a risky, expensive way for no benefit?

Since eCash is Sha256d mined, the more likely outcome is that 256d miners support eCash. If eCash does well, then their ASICs increase in value.