The cryptocurrency world has seen its fair share of drama, but few events have sparked as much controversy and speculation as the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard fork of 2018. While the broader market was already reeling from a prolonged bear market, the BCH split added fuel to the fire—raising questions about decentralization, mining power, and the future of blockchain governance.
In this deep dive, we’ll unpack what the BCH fork was, why it happened, who was involved, and how it impacted not just BCH—but the entire crypto ecosystem, including Bitcoin (BTC).
What Is a Blockchain Fork?
Before understanding the BCH split, it’s essential to grasp what a fork means in blockchain terms.
A fork occurs when a blockchain diverges into two separate paths. This typically happens due to changes in the protocol or disagreements within the community. There are two main types:
- Soft Fork: A backward-compatible upgrade. Old nodes still recognize new blocks, so consensus remains intact once all participants update.
- Hard Fork: A permanent split requiring all nodes to upgrade. If some continue using the old rules, two distinct chains emerge—each with its own transaction history and coin.
Hard forks often stem from ideological or technical disagreements—and the 2018 BCH split was no exception.
Why Did Bitcoin Cash Split?
Bitcoin Cash itself originated from a hard fork of Bitcoin in August 2017, driven by a desire to increase block size for faster and cheaper transactions. Now, just over a year later, BCH faced another internal rift.
The core issue? Block size expansion and philosophical direction.
Two factions emerged:
- Bitcoin ABC ( Adjustable Blocksize Cap ) – Backed by Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu.
- Bitcoin SV ( Satoshi Vision ) – Championed by Craig Wright (CSW), who claims to be the original Satoshi Nakamoto.
While both sides agreed on increasing scalability, they diverged sharply on how to achieve it:
- Bitcoin ABC proposed modest upgrades with adaptive block sizes and new opcodes to support smart contracts.
- Bitcoin SV aimed to restore what CSW called the "original Bitcoin protocol," advocating for massive 128MB+ blocks and strict adherence to early Bitcoin code.
But beyond technical debates lay deeper tensions—mining dominance, economic incentives, and control over the network’s future.
👉 Discover how blockchain splits impact market dynamics and investor decisions.
The Players Behind the Split
🔹 Bitmain & Bitcoin ABC
Led by Jihan Wu, Bitmain is one of the largest manufacturers of crypto mining hardware. Through its Antpool and BTC.com operations, Bitmain wielded significant hash power across multiple chains—including BTC and BCH.
Wu positioned Bitcoin ABC as the legitimate evolution of BCH, arguing that innovation and flexibility were key to long-term survival.
“The BCH community is resisting a false Satoshi and a cult leader. This proves the strength and intelligence of our ecosystem.”
— Jihan Wu
🔹 Craig Wright & Bitcoin SV
Craig Wright, a controversial figure in crypto circles, claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto—a claim widely disputed but passionately defended by his supporters.
With backing from CoinGeek Mining—one of the largest BCH mining pools—Wright pushed Bitcoin SV as the "true" vision of Bitcoin, promising enterprise-grade blockchain solutions through massive scaling.
“I will destroy Bitmain with money. I am a billionaire. I have enough funds to burn.”
— Craig Wright
Their rivalry wasn’t just technical—it was personal, public, and increasingly hostile.
What Was the "Hash War"?
The term "hash war" refers to a competition between two blockchain factions to gain majority control of the network's computational power (hash rate). Whoever controls more than 50% can theoretically perform a 51% attack, enabling double-spending or halting transaction confirmations.
In this case, both camps used their mining resources to dominate block production on their preferred chain after the fork.
How It Played Out:
- On November 15, 2018, BCH officially split into BCH ABC and BCH SV.
- Bitmain temporarily redirected part of its BTC-mining hash power to boost BCH ABC’s chances.
- This led to BCH ABC producing blocks faster initially, while BCH SV struggled with slower confirmation times.
- CSW accused Bitmain of unfair tactics, calling it an abuse of user-controlled mining resources.
Despite dramatic posturing, no full-scale 51% attack occurred. Instead, the hash war evolved into a prolonged standoff—more marathon than sprint.
Impact on Bitcoin (BTC) and Market Sentiment
One of the most debated aspects was whether the BCH fork caused BTC’s price to drop.
At the time, BTC fell below $4,500—a level not seen since late 2017. Many pointed fingers at the fork:
- Some speculated CSW sold large amounts of BTC to fund his campaign.
- Others believed Bitmain’s temporary shift in mining resources weakened BTC’s network security.
- Another theory suggested that market sentiment was already fragile; the fork simply triggered widespread panic selling.
While no direct causation can be proven, the event exposed vulnerabilities in inter-chain dependencies, especially when major mining pools operate across multiple networks.
The hash war reminded investors that even decentralized systems can be influenced by centralized actors with enough capital and computing power.
👉 See how major crypto events influence market volatility and trading strategies.
What Did It Mean for Users and Exchanges?
When a hard fork occurs, users holding the original coin typically receive an equal amount of the new coin—assuming exchanges support it.
But during uncertain splits like this one, platforms had tough choices:
- Suspend deposits/withdrawals to avoid replay attacks or balance confusion.
- Support both chains but risk backing a losing fork.
- Take sides, potentially alienating part of their user base.
Major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase adopted cautious approaches:
- Temporarily halted BCH services.
- Later listed both BCHABC (renamed simply BCH) and BCHSV (later renamed BSV).
- Allowed users to claim both assets post-fork.
For retail investors, it meant navigating uncertainty—choosing which chain to hold, trade, or sell.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
❓ Did the BCH fork create free money for holders?
Yes—for a time. Anyone holding BCH before the fork received an equivalent amount of both BCH ABC and BCH SV after the split. However, only exchanges that supported both chains enabled this airdrop-like distribution.
❓ Which chain won the fork?
Technically, neither chain disappeared. But BCH ABC retained broader support from developers, miners, and exchanges. Today, "BCH" refers to the Bitcoin ABC chain, while "BSV" continues independently with niche adoption.
❓ Was there a 51% attack during the hash war?
No confirmed successful attacks occurred. While both sides had sufficient hash power to attempt one, doing so would have damaged trust in their respective projects—and likely reduced long-term value.
❓ How did this affect Bitcoin’s security?
It highlighted risks: large mining entities can reallocate resources across chains. If major players prioritize profit over protocol stability, even BTC could face temporary disruptions during high-stakes forks elsewhere.
❓ Should investors worry about future forks?
Forks are natural in decentralized ecosystems. What matters is community consensus and exchange support. Always research before assuming entitlement to new tokens after a split.
👉 Stay ahead of crypto forks and market shifts with real-time insights.
Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Tale for Decentralization
The 2018 BCH fork wasn’t just about technology—it was about power, influence, and ideology. It revealed how deeply economic interests shape blockchain development.
While decentralization remains a core ideal in crypto, events like the hash war show that real-world control often lies with those who hold mining power and capital.
For investors, developers, and enthusiasts alike, understanding such events is crucial—not only to anticipate market moves but also to evaluate which projects truly align with decentralized principles.
As the crypto space matures, these battles may become less frequent—but they’ll remain a reminder: in blockchain, code isn’t law without consensus.