Introduction
The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network is scheduled for another hard fork on November 15, 2020, continuing its pattern of semi-annual upgrades. This marks the seventh major fork since BCH's inception in 2017. Crypto exchanges like OKEx have already announced support plans, triggering price volatility. But what drives these forks, and how do they impact the ecosystem?
👉 Stay updated on crypto forks
The Evolution of Bitcoin and Its Forks
1. The Birth of BTC and the Scaling Debate
- 2008: Satoshi Nakamoto publishes the Bitcoin whitepaper, envisioning a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
- 2013: BTC faces congestion due to its 1MB block size limit, processing only 4–7 transactions per second (vs. Visa's 4,700+).
- 2015–2017: Community splits between "small blockers" (Core developers advocating SegWit/Lightning Network) and "big blockers" (miners pushing on-chain scaling).
2. The 2017 Fork: BCH Emerges
On August 1, 2017, miners hard-forked BTC at block height 478,558, creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Key changes:
- Block size increased to 8MB (later 32MB).
- SegWit deactivated, prioritizing on-chain transactions.
- Holders received BCH 1:1 with BTC.
Major BCH Forks: 2018–2020
1. The 2018 BCHABC vs. BCHSV Split
- November 16, 2018: A ideological clash between BCHABC (led by Roger Ver) and BCHSV (Craig Wright’s "Satoshi Vision") split the chain.
Key differences:
- BCHABC: Continued BCH’s original roadmap (32MB blocks, smart contract opcodes).
- BCHSV: Aimed to "restore Bitcoin’s original protocol" with 128MB blocks (later 2GB).
(BCH fork timeline diagram would appear here.)
2. Subsequent Upgrades
BCH underwent three more hard forks post-2018, focusing on:
- Script opcode reactivation (enabling tokenization).
- Block size optimization (improving throughput).
- Privacy enhancements.
The 2020 Fork: A Conflict of Interests
1. The Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
- Proposal: Allocate 8% of block rewards to a development fund.
- Controversy: Miners opposed it as a "forced tax," while developers argued it ensured sustainable funding.
2. Competing Implementations
- BCHABC: Pushed IFP integration.
- BCH Node (BCHN): Removed IFP, gaining 84% of recent blocks.
3. Likely Outcomes
- BCHN is favored due to miner support.
- Impact: Short-term stability but unresolved funding issues for developers.
Comparing BTC, BCH, and BSV Visions
| Feature | BTC | BCH | BSV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block Size | 1MB (SegWit) | 32MB | 2GB (Unlimited) |
| Focus | Store of Value | Electronic Cash | Enterprise Ledger |
| Governance | Core Developers | Miner-Centric | Craig Wright’s Vision |
Impact of Forks
1. For Token Holders
- Receive new chain tokens 1:1 (e.g., BCHN and BCHA).
- Warning: Replay attacks risk losing coins during transfers.
2. For Miners
- SHA256 compatibility allows hash-power switching.
- Post-fork price swings influence mining profitability.
3. Security Risks
- Reduced hash power on forked chains increases 51% attack vulnerability.
FAQs
1. Why does BCH fork so often?
Forks enable protocol upgrades and resolve ideological differences—essential for decentralized governance.
2. How do exchanges handle BCH forks?
Exchanges like OKEx snapshot holdings and support the dominant chain. Users receive both tokens if chains diverge.
3. Is BSV still part of the BCH ecosystem?
No. BSV split in 2018 and operates independently with a focus on massive scaling.
4. What’s the biggest risk post-fork?
Chain instability and reduced security from hash-power fragmentation.
5. Can BCH overtake BTC as "digital cash"?
Unlikely soon. BTC’s brand dominance and BCH’s payment adoption gaps remain hurdles.