In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrencies, few events have sparked as much controversy and technical drama as the 2018 split within the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community. What began as a philosophical disagreement over the future direction of the blockchain quickly escalated into a full-blown hash war between two competing factions: Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHABC) and Bitcoin SV (BCHSV).
For a brief period, "Bitcoin Cash ABC" was more than just a software client—it became a symbol of one vision for decentralized scalability. However, by November 23, 2018, the dust had begun to settle, and Bitcoin Cash ABC emerged not as a separate entity, but as the de facto continuation of the original Bitcoin Cash chain.
But how did we get here? And what were the core differences that drove such a bitter divide?
Understanding Bitcoin Cash: A Brief Overview
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was born on August 1, 2017, following a hard fork from the original Bitcoin blockchain. The split stemmed from an ongoing debate about how best to scale Bitcoin’s network. While the Bitcoin Core developers favored off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network, proponents of Bitcoin Cash believed in increasing the block size to allow for more on-chain transactions.
These supporters argue that larger blocks enable faster, cheaper transactions—making BCH a more viable peer-to-peer electronic cash system, in line with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper vision.
👉 Discover how blockchain scaling impacts real-world crypto use today.
One of the earliest implementations of Bitcoin Cash was Bitcoin Cash ABC, where “ABC” stands for Adjustable Blocksize Cap. Unlike fixed limits, this model allowed users and miners to dynamically choose their preferred block size, promoting flexibility and decentralization. It gained strong backing from key figures like Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com, and Jihan Wu, co-founder of Bitmain—one of the largest mining hardware manufacturers.
The Road to the 2018 Hard Fork
On November 15, 2018, another scheduled upgrade triggered deep divisions within the BCH ecosystem. This time, two rival camps emerged with fundamentally different visions:
Bitcoin Cash ABC: Innovation Through Regular Upgrades
The Bitcoin ABC team advocated for continuous improvement through biannual hard forks. Their proposed changes included:
- Canonical Transaction Ordering (CTOR): A new method for ordering transactions within blocks, improving efficiency and paving the way for future scaling.
- Oracle Support: Introduction of new scripting capabilities to support decentralized oracles.
- Smaller Technical Fixes: Adjustments such as lowering the minimum transaction size.
This approach emphasized evolution and adaptability, aiming to keep BCH competitive in a fast-moving industry.
Bitcoin SV (Satoshi’s Vision): Return to Origins
Led by Craig Wright, who controversially claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin SV sought to restore what he described as the true original protocol—specifically, Bitcoin version 0.1.0 from 2009.
Key features of BCHSV included:
- A default 128 MB block size, with plans to eventually remove block size limits entirely.
- Rejection of CTOR in favor of legacy transaction ordering.
- Removal of script size restrictions to allow complex smart contracts.
- Ambitious plans to reactivate dormant addresses, including those believed to belong to early adopters or even Satoshi himself.
Wright positioned BCHSV as the purest form of digital cash—immutable, scalable, and resistant to developer-driven changes.
Community and Mining Support: A Divided Ecosystem
The split wasn’t just ideological—it played out across exchanges, mining pools, and public sentiment.
Who Supported Bitcoin Cash ABC?
- Roger Ver and Jihan Wu remained vocal supporters.
- Most major exchanges—including Binance and Kraken—recognized BCHABC as the legitimate continuation of Bitcoin Cash and listed it under the BCH ticker.
- Development teams behind other clients like Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitprim aligned with ABC.
- Futures markets showed stronger investor confidence, with BCHABC futures trading at a premium over BCHSV on platforms like BitMEX.
Who Backed Bitcoin SV?
- Funded largely by billionaire entrepreneur Calvin Ayre through his media outlet CoinGeek.
- Gained significant support from large mining pools, giving it up to 70% of BCH’s total hash power pre-fork.
- Advocated for “proof-of-work supremacy,” arguing that the chain with the most computational power should be considered valid.
This imbalance created a dangerous scenario: while ABC had broader exchange and community support, SV held a temporary edge in raw mining power.
The Hash War: When Miners Become Warriors
A hash war occurs when competing chains use mining power aggressively to overpower one another—either by reorganizing blocks or launching sustained attacks.
In this case, tensions were heightened by the absence of effective replay protection. Although Bitcoin ABC implemented replay protection to prevent cross-chain transaction duplication, Bitcoin SV copied this mechanism in a way that effectively neutralized it—opening the door to replay attacks.
👉 Learn how secure blockchain transactions really are in high-conflict forks.
A replay attack allows malicious actors to broadcast a transaction from one chain onto another, potentially leading to unintended double-spending. This risk was not theoretical—similar issues plagued the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic split in 2016.
Craig Wright further escalated tensions by suggesting he would not hesitate to launch a 51% attack on the ABC chain if necessary. While controversial, such an attack would allow SV miners to rewrite transaction history and invalidate ABC blocks.
The ABC team had several countermeasures ready:
- Wait it out: Sustained attacks are expensive; attackers lose money over time.
- Mobilize additional hash power: Recruit miners from other networks (including Bitcoin).
- Nuclear option: Fork again and change the proof-of-work algorithm (e.g., from SHA-256), rendering existing ASICs useless against the new chain.
Fortunately, no full-scale 51% attack occurred—but both sides engaged in symbolic mining battles, including the creation of empty blocks to assert dominance.
Post-Fork Reality: Winners, Losers, and Market Impact
Despite fears of chaos, the aftermath was relatively orderly—but impactful.
- Bitcoin Cash ABC secured recognition from nearly all major exchanges as the official BCH chain.
- Initially lagging in hash power, ABC eventually stabilized its network position.
- However, data from Coin.Dance showed that by November 23, BCHSV briefly controlled over 53% of total hashrate—proving the conflict wasn’t over.
- Meanwhile, BCHSV’s price surged more than 50% in 24 hours, reflecting speculative interest and mining confidence.
More broadly, the hash war had unintended consequences for the entire crypto market. Reports suggest that Bitmain diverted substantial mining resources from Bitcoin (BTC) to support BCH mining efforts. This shift weakened BTC’s network security temporarily and may have contributed to a sharp drop in Bitcoin’s price during that period—a reminder of how interconnected these ecosystems truly are.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What was the main difference between Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV?
Bitcoin Cash ABC supported regular upgrades and innovations like CTOR and oracle integration, while Bitcoin SV aimed to preserve what Craig Wright called the “original” Bitcoin protocol with massive block sizes and minimal changes.
Did the hash war result in a 51% attack?
No confirmed 51% attack occurred. While both sides demonstrated mining strength, neither successfully rewrote significant portions of the opposing chain.
Which chain is considered “real” Bitcoin Cash today?
Today, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) refers to the chain following the Bitcoin Cash ABC roadmap. The competing chain continues as Bitcoin SV (BSV) under its own ticker.
Why did exchanges back Bitcoin Cash ABC?
Exchanges prioritized user safety, market stability, and broad developer consensus. BCHABC had wider community adoption and stronger support from wallet providers and infrastructure teams.
Can dormant Satoshi-era coins be spent on Bitcoin SV?
While Craig Wright proposed reactivating old addresses, no such action has been successfully executed. Doing so would require access to private keys and raise serious ethical and technical concerns.
Is another hard fork possible in the future?
Hard forks remain a possibility in any decentralized network. However, lessons from 2018 have made developers more cautious about implementing contentious upgrades without broad consensus.
👉 Stay ahead of future crypto forks with real-time market insights.
Final Thoughts
The battle between Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV was more than a technical dispute—it was a clash of ideologies about decentralization, governance, and what it means to stay true to Bitcoin’s roots.
While Bitcoin Cash ABC prevailed in terms of exchange recognition and branding continuity, Bitcoin SV demonstrated that raw computational power can challenge even well-established consensus.
Ultimately, both chains continue to exist today—BCH as a scalable digital currency focused on usability, and BSV as a niche player pushing extreme on-chain scaling. Their rivalry serves as a powerful case study in blockchain governance, miner influence, and the unpredictable nature of decentralized networks.
Core Keywords:
Bitcoin Cash ABC, Bitcoin SV, hard fork, hash war, blockchain scaling, CTOR, proof-of-work, cryptocurrency
Note: This article reflects historical events in cryptocurrency development. It does not constitute financial advice.