Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has experienced multiple hard forks since its inception, each driven by ideological, technical, and economic disagreements within the cryptocurrency community. These splits have not only shaped the evolution of BCH but also given rise to new blockchain projects like Bitcoin SV (BSV). Understanding the history of BCH forks offers valuable insights into blockchain governance, decentralization, and the ongoing debate over scalability and vision.
This article explores the origins of BCH, its major forks, the motivations behind them, and their long-term implications for users, developers, and miners.
The Origins of BTC, BCH, and BSV
The story begins with Bitcoin (BTC), introduced in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto through a groundbreaking white paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” On January 3, 2009, the Bitcoin genesis block was mined, launching the world’s first decentralized digital currency.
Initially embraced by tech enthusiasts, Bitcoin gradually gained mainstream attention. However, by late 2013, users began experiencing transaction delays and high fees due to network congestion. With a 1MB block size limit and a 10-minute block time, Bitcoin could only process about 4–7 transactions per second—far below the capacity of traditional payment systems like Visa.
👉 Discover how blockchain networks evolve through community-driven upgrades
This bottleneck sparked a heated debate within the Bitcoin community. Two camps emerged:
- Miners and large-block advocates pushed for increasing the block size to improve on-chain scalability.
- Core developers and small-block proponents favored off-chain solutions like Segregated Witness (SegWit) and the Lightning Network to enhance throughput without altering block size.
After years of unresolved conflict, a hard fork occurred on August 1, 2017, at block height 478,558. The result was Bitcoin Cash (BCH)—a new chain that removed SegWit, increased the block size to 8MB (later expanded to 32MB), and aimed to fulfill Bitcoin’s original promise as peer-to-peer electronic cash. BCH was distributed 1:1 to existing BTC holders.
The Great Split: BCHABC vs. BSV
Despite initial success, internal disagreements resurfaced in 2018. In April, the BCH development team announced a roadmap to further expand block size to 32MB and re-enable certain OP-codes—scripting functions that would allow smart contracts and token creation on the BCH network.
However, Craig Wright (CW), an Australian scientist claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, strongly opposed this direction. He argued that Bitcoin should remain unchanged except for scaling capacity. His vision led to the creation of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) via a hard fork on November 16, 2018, splitting BCH into two chains: BCHABC (later renamed BCH) and BCHSV (now BSV).
BSV took an aggressive approach to scalability. On July 24, 2019, it conducted another hard fork, removing all block size limits—effectively enabling "unlimited" expansion. A 2GB block cap was set in practice, allowing BSV to mine a record-breaking 256MB block shortly after.
This ideological divide solidified three distinct paths in the Bitcoin ecosystem:
- BTC: Focus on security and store-of-value ("digital gold").
- BCH: Balance between payments and limited smart functionality.
- BSV: Enterprise-grade blockchain with massive data storage capabilities.
Technical Visions Compared
Bitcoin (BTC): Off-Chain Scaling
BTC maintains a 1MB block size (post-SegWit effective size ~4MB) to keep full nodes accessible and decentralized. It relies on SegWit—which separates signature data from transaction data—and the Lightning Network, a second-layer solution for fast, low-cost micropayments.
As of recent data:
- Lightning Network capacity: ~1,038 BTC
- Nodes: Over 14,500
- Payment channels: ~35,288
While node count has grown, channel count and network capacity have stagnated—indicating slower-than-expected adoption for everyday payments.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH): On-Chain Expansion
BCH sticks to on-chain scaling with a 32MB block size, enabling higher transaction throughput. It reactivated several OP-codes to support metadata embedding and simple smart contracts. Projects like Wormhole attempted to build token systems on BCH but were eventually discontinued.
Today, BCH leans back toward being pure electronic cash. As of 2020:
- Over 3,800 crypto ATMs support BCH worldwide.
- Represents about 32% of all cryptocurrency ATM services.
- Still lags far behind BTC’s near-ubiquitous ATM presence (~99.9%).
👉 Learn how blockchain upgrades impact real-world usability
Bitcoin SV (BSV): Global Data Ledger
BSV aims to become a public data ledger for enterprises. With no hard block limit (practically capped at 2GB), it supports large-scale applications like social media platforms and supply chain tracking directly on-chain.
BSV emphasizes compliance and regulatory alignment—positioning itself as a blockchain for businesses rather than just cryptocurrency users. However, its price volatility and association with controversial figures have led critics to label it a "demon coin."
The 2020 Infrastructure Funding Conflict
On November 15, 2020, BCH faced another hard fork—not over technical design, but funding model.
The BCH ABC development team proposed the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), which would redirect 8% of block rewards to fund core development. This was intended to solve the chronic underfunding of open-source blockchain developers who contribute without direct system compensation.
However, miners strongly opposed IFP, viewing it as a tax on their earnings. In response:
- The BCHN (BCH Node) client was created by developer Freetrader.
- It rejected IFP and gained rapid miner support.
By fork time:
- 84.2% of recent blocks were mined by the BCHN chain.
- The competing BCHA (formerly ABC) chain had nearly zero hash power.
The outcome? BCHN won consensus, retaining the ticker BCH, while the minority chain continued as BCHA.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What triggers a hard fork in cryptocurrencies?
A: A hard fork occurs when there’s a fundamental change in protocol rules that isn’t backward-compatible. Nodes must upgrade; otherwise, they risk splitting the network.
Q: Did BCH holders receive free coins during forks?
A: Yes. During both the 2018 (BSV) and 2020 (BCHA) forks, BCH holders received an equal amount of new tokens (1:1) if they controlled their private keys before the snapshot.
Q: Is replay protection available during forks?
A: Yes. Most forks implement replay protection so transactions on one chain don’t automatically execute on the other—preventing accidental loss of funds.
Q: How do forks affect mining profitability?
A: Miners can switch between SHA256-based chains (BTC, BCH, BSV). After a fork, hash power redistributes based on profitability. Lower hash power on a new chain increases vulnerability to 51% attacks.
Q: Which chain is considered “true” Bitcoin Cash today?
A: The chain with majority hash power—currently the one supported by BCHN—is recognized as BCH by most exchanges and services.
Impact of Forks on Users and Security
For users:
- Forks create opportunities to claim new assets.
- But they require caution: transferring during a fork without replay protection can lead to unintended transactions on both chains.
For network security:
- Splitting hash power weakens both chains temporarily.
- Reduced mining power increases risks like double-spending or 51% attacks.
- Over time, market forces determine which chain survives based on adoption and utility.
Forks represent a core feature of decentralized governance—allowing communities to diverge peacefully when consensus fails. While disruptive, they reflect the freedom inherent in open-source blockchains.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin Cash, BCH fork history, BSV vs BCH, hard fork explained, blockchain scalability, cryptocurrency upgrades, IFP controversy