Bitcoin Cash at a Crossroads: Can It Survive the Fork Wars?

·

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is no longer the rising star it once was. Once hailed as the most viable competitor to Bitcoin after its 2017 split, BCH now struggles to regain relevance amid recurring community fractures and two damaging hard forks in 2020. With its price down over 94% from its all-time highs and its ecosystem fragmented, the future of Bitcoin Cash hangs in the balance.

The 2020 Hard Fork: A Battle for Legitimacy

On November 15, 2020, at block height 661647, Bitcoin Cash underwent another contentious hard fork—this time splitting into two chains: Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) and Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHA). The split was triggered not by external competition, but by internal conflict over the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP)—a controversial proposal that reignited long-standing tensions within the BCH community.

👉 Discover how blockchain networks handle governance conflicts and what it means for investor trust.

The IFP, championed by the core development team Bitcoin ABC, proposed redirecting 8% of block rewards over six months to fund software development and public infrastructure. While intended to ensure sustainable growth, many miners and community members saw it as a forced tax—a move contradicting the decentralized ethos of cryptocurrency.

At stake was more than just funding; it was the "BCH" name itself. Historically, market recognition and exchange listings determine which chain inherits the original ticker. In this case, early signals favored BCHN.

Major exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken announced support for BCHN, refusing to list or facilitate transactions for the ABC chain. Wallet providers such as imToken defaulted to BCHN, and influential mining pools—including ViaBTC, BTC.TOP, and F2Pool—rallied behind it. According to data from Cash.coin, over 85% of recent blocks were mined using BCHN nodes, while Bitcoin ABC failed to mine any.

Despite this momentum, questions remain about BCHN’s long-term viability. Bitcoin ABC had led development since BCH’s inception, delivering stable upgrades without major security flaws. Their experience gave them technical credibility—even as they lost political support.

A History of Division: From Scaling Debates to Power Struggles

Bitcoin Cash was born out of dissent. In 2017, amid growing congestion on the Bitcoin network, a faction led by Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu pushed for larger block sizes. When consensus couldn’t be reached, they forked off to create BCH—a chain focused on fast, low-cost transactions.

But peace was short-lived. By 2018, another schism emerged between Bitcoin ABC and Craig Wright’s Bitcoin SV (BSV) camp. Both claimed to represent the true vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash. The result? A high-stakes hash war that drained resources and damaged public perception.

Wu’s team ultimately prevailed, retaining control of the BCH brand. BSV split off permanently. Yet victory came at a cost: trust eroded, and the community grew wary of centralized influence.

Fast forward to 2020, and history repeated itself. The IFP debate exposed a deeper issue: how should open-source blockchain projects fund development without compromising decentralization?

Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, which benefit from broad developer ecosystems and foundation funding, BCH has largely relied on volunteer contributors. As the network grew, so did the burden on developers—many of whom expressed frustration over lack of compensation.

Amaury Séchet, lead developer of Bitcoin ABC, famously remarked that if their software generated $1 billion in mining revenue, asking miners to return a fraction wasn’t unreasonable. But to many, mandatory contributions felt coercive—not collaborative.

The Turning Tide: When Miners Rebel

Opposition to IFP wasn’t limited to ideology. Economic realities played a key role. With Bitcoin’s price surging and block rewards halving, miners faced shrinking margins. Being asked to give up even 8% of earnings—especially when rewards are already shared across a competitive landscape—was a bridge too far.

Enter BCHN, launched in February 2020 by early BCH developer Freetrader, alongside Bitcoin Unlimited and Electron Cash teams. BCHN offered a clean break: no IFP, full miner autonomy, and alignment with community consensus.

Support grew rapidly. By August 2020, figures like Liang Zhaolai (Jihan Wu's ally) and major Chinese mining pools had shifted allegiance to BCHN. Even江卓爾 (Jiang Zhuo’er), who initially backed a similar "miner tax" proposal in May, reversed his stance:

"The development team and domain name aren't BCH—community is BCH. No matter how central your role, violating consensus means getting left behind."

Faced with mounting pressure, Bitcoin ABC conceded. On November 6, they announced they would support both chains post-fork—effectively abandoning IFP enforcement and allowing users to choose.

👉 Learn how decentralized governance shapes the future of digital assets.

Short-Term Relief, Long-Term Risks

Past forks show a troubling pattern: short-term volatility followed by long-term decline.

More telling is the waning interest. Unlike the 2018 hash war, which captivated crypto Twitter and news outlets, the 2020 split drew little attention.

"This fork didn’t make waves," one investor told PANews. "People have lost interest—or worse, lost faith. Who’s to say the hero won’t become the villain next time?"

Forking may resolve immediate disputes, but it doesn’t solve structural issues like developer sustainability or community cohesion. Each split fragments the ecosystem further, dilutes network effects, and weakens investor confidence.

Core Keywords

FAQ Section

Q: What caused the 2020 Bitcoin Cash hard fork?
A: The fork resulted from disagreement over the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP), which proposed redirecting 8% of block rewards to fund development—an idea opposed by miners and much of the community.

Q: Which chain won—the BCHN or BCHA fork?
A: While no official winner exists, BCHN gained broader support from miners, exchanges like Coinbase, wallets, and pools. Most market indicators treated BCHN as the continuation of Bitcoin Cash.

Q: Why did miners oppose the IFP?
A: Miners viewed IFP as a forced tax that reduced their earnings without consent. At a time when profitability was already under pressure from Bitcoin’s rally, giving up part of block rewards felt unfair and risky.

Q: Is Bitcoin Cash still relevant today?
A: Its influence has declined significantly since 2017–2018 highs. While it maintains a user base and merchant adoption in niche markets, repeated forks and leadership disputes have weakened its position against competitors like Bitcoin and Litecoin.

Q: Can blockchain projects fund development without centralization?
A: It’s a major challenge. Some use voluntary donations or foundation grants; others experiment with on-chain funding (e.g., Dash’s treasury). True decentralization requires balancing developer incentives with community governance.

Q: What lessons can other cryptocurrencies learn from BCH’s splits?
A: Governance matters. Transparent decision-making, broad consensus-building, and fair funding models are essential. Relying solely on hard forks to resolve disputes risks fracturing communities and eroding trust.

Final Thoughts

Bitcoin Cash stands at a crossroads. Repeated reliance on hard forks reflects deep governance flaws—not just technical disagreements. While decentralization remains a core ideal, sustainable development requires realistic funding solutions that don’t alienate key stakeholders.

Whether BCH can heal its divisions and rebuild momentum remains uncertain. But one lesson is clear: in blockchain, community trust is more valuable than code.

👉 Explore secure ways to engage with emerging blockchain networks and stay ahead of market shifts.