Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is fading from the mainstream spotlight.
Born three years ago from a high-stakes scaling debate within the Bitcoin community, BCH once stood as the most viable alternative to Bitcoin itself. Today, while Bitcoin inches toward record highs, Bitcoin Cash has plummeted over 94% from its all-time peak—its momentum sapped by repeated community splits and two contentious hard forks rooted in ideological and financial disagreements.
The Battle for the BCH Name: BCHN vs. BCHA
In November 2020, Bitcoin Cash underwent another hard fork—its seventh protocol upgrade—sparking a new battle for legitimacy and the right to bear the "BCH" name. At block height 661647, the chain split into two competing versions: Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) and Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHA).
The divide emerged from deep-seated tensions over the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP), a controversial proposal by Bitcoin ABC to allocate 8% of block rewards to fund development efforts for six months. This move was met with fierce resistance from miners and core community members who viewed it as a betrayal of decentralization principles.
On the ground, BCHN quickly gained momentum. Major mining pools—including F2Pool, ViaBTC, and BTC.TOP—rallied behind it. Wallet providers like imToken defaulted to BCHN, and exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken announced support while refusing to list or service the BCHA chain.
👉 Discover how blockchain governance shapes market outcomes — explore real-time crypto insights here.
From a technical standpoint, BCHN dominated early on. Data from Cash.coin showed that out of 1,000 blocks mined post-fork, 853 were built on BCHN nodes, with no blocks produced on the Bitcoin ABC chain. This overwhelming hash rate advantage suggested a clear community mandate.
But dominance doesn’t guarantee long-term success. Bitcoin ABC had been the primary development force behind BCH since its inception, delivering consistent upgrades without major security flaws. Its team, led by core developer Amaury Séchet, brought years of experience and technical credibility.
In contrast, BCHN’s development roadmap and sustainability remained uncertain. Could it maintain network stability and innovation without replicating the same funding dilemmas? And if not, might miners eventually return to a reformed version of ABC?
For now, Bitcoin ABC finds itself in a precarious position—criticized for pushing IFP despite opposition, and increasingly isolated as miners abandon its chain.
Why Does Bitcoin Cash Keep Forking?
Forking is not new to BCH—it's practically part of its DNA.
The original split in 2017 stemmed from debates over block size limits. Led by Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu, proponents argued that increasing block sizes was essential to preserve Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer electronic cash vision. When consensus couldn’t be reached with core Bitcoin developers, they forked off to create Bitcoin Cash.
Two years later, in 2018, another dramatic fork unfolded—this time between Bitcoin ABC and Craig Wright’s Bitcoin SV (BSV). That conflict centered on protocol direction and control, culminating in an expensive hash war that drained resources and damaged public perception.
Now, history appears to be repeating itself—not over block size this time, but over developer funding.
Unlike projects like Ethereum or even Bitcoin Core—which benefit from formal foundations and ongoing grants—BCH has historically relied on volunteer-driven development. There’s no centralized treasury or institutional backing. As the network grows, so does the burden on unpaid contributors.
Amaury Séchet, lead developer at Bitcoin ABC, openly criticized this unsustainable model:
“Bitcoin ABC has generated over $1 billion in mining revenue. If our new software required miners to contribute 100% of their profits back to development, would that really be so unreasonable?”
This sentiment underpinned the IFP proposal: redirect a small portion of block rewards (8%) to fund infrastructure and development for six months. Yet many saw it as a power grab—an implicit tax enforced through code.
Even earlier attempts at funding faced backlash. In early 2020, Litecoin miner Jiang Zhuoer (Laibitcoin) proposed a “miner tax” of 12.5%, backed by influential figures like Roger Ver and Wu himself. But widespread opposition killed the idea—echoing concerns that mandatory contributions undermine decentralization.
👉 See how top cryptocurrencies handle developer incentives — get updated market intelligence now.
Community Revolt and the Rise of BCHN
Faced with growing discontent, former BCH developer Freetrader launched Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) in February 2020—a clean fork without IFP. Backed by Bitcoin Unlimited and Electron Cash teams, BCHN positioned itself as the people’s choice: community-first, transparent, and resistant to centralized control.
Support surged. By August 2020, BCHN claimed backing from over 60% of miners on Reddit communities and key Chinese mining pools. Even Jiang Zhuoer switched sides:
“The development team and domain don’t define BCH—the community does. No matter how influential you are, going against consensus means getting left behind.”
Under mounting pressure, Bitcoin ABC finally relented. On November 6, just days before the fork, they announced support for both chains—effectively abandoning IFP enforcement and allowing users to choose freely.
It was a strategic retreat—but also a symbolic defeat for top-down governance models in decentralized networks.
Short-Term Relief or Long-Term Decline?
History shows that BCH forks trigger volatility—but diminishing returns.
- In late 2018, during the BSV vs. ABC hash war, BCH dropped 87%, falling from $630 to under $80.
- In November 2020, the IFP-related fork caused an 8% price drop, from $255 to $235.
But unlike previous events, this latest split drew little attention. Markets barely blinked. Investors expressed indifference:
“This fork didn’t move the needle. Most people have lost interest—or worse, given up on BCH entirely.”
That apathy speaks volumes. Repeated forks erode trust, fragment ecosystems, and dilute brand value. While forking can resolve irreconcilable differences, relying on it as a default conflict-resolution mechanism is unsustainable.
Yes, BCHN may have won this round—but the fundamental issue remains: how do you fund development without compromising decentralization?
There are no easy answers. Donation-based models risk underfunding. Tax-like mechanisms risk alienating miners. And endless forks risk killing the network through attrition.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What caused the 2020 Bitcoin Cash hard fork?
A: The fork was triggered by disagreement over the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP), which proposed redirecting 8% of block rewards to fund development—a move many miners opposed as coercive.
Q: Which chain won the fork—BCHN or BCHA?
A: While no official winner was declared, BCHN gained overwhelming miner support and broader ecosystem adoption, making it the de facto continuation of Bitcoin Cash for most services.
Q: Is Bitcoin Cash still relevant in 2025?
A: Its relevance has diminished due to repeated forks and declining market share. However, it maintains a niche as a low-fee payment-focused cryptocurrency.
Q: Did the fork create new coins for holders?
A: Yes—users who held BCH before the split received equivalent amounts on both chains initially, though only one (BCHN) retained major exchange listings.
Q: Can future forks be avoided?
A: Only through stronger governance models that balance developer needs with miner and user consensus—something BCH has yet to establish sustainably.
Q: Why do forks hurt cryptocurrency projects?
A: They split communities, reduce liquidity, increase confusion among users, and often lead to price drops due to uncertainty and sell-offs.
👉 Stay ahead of crypto market shifts — access real-time data and trends today.
Conclusion: Forking Is Not a Fix
Bitcoin Cash keeps choosing division over unity. Each fork may solve an immediate crisis—but at a steep cost. What began as a bold experiment in scaling has become a cautionary tale about governance, incentive alignment, and community trust.
For BCH to survive beyond 2025, it must move beyond reactive forking and build durable structures that fund innovation without coercion—structures where developers, miners, and users align voluntarily around shared goals.
Otherwise, every fork brings it one step closer to irrelevance.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin Cash, hard fork, BCHN, BCHA, Infrastructure Funding Plan, blockchain governance, cryptocurrency split, decentralized development