The debate over Bitcoin’s scalability has been a defining issue since its early days. What began as a technical discussion over block size limits eventually escalated into one of the most dramatic schisms in cryptocurrency history—the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, and later, the bitter Hash War between Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin Cash SV.
At the heart of this conflict was a fundamental disagreement: should blockchain growth come from on-chain scaling (larger blocks) or off-chain solutions (like SegWit)? This ideological rift not only split Bitcoin in 2017 but re-emerged just a year later within the Bitcoin Cash community itself.
Let’s explore how this all unfolded, what drove the Hash War, and where these two chains stand today.
The Origins of Bitcoin Cash: A Response to Scalability
Bitcoin was designed with a 1MB block size limit—a safeguard implemented by Satoshi Nakamoto to prevent bloated blocks and potential chain splits due to miner discretion. However, as adoption surged, this limit became a bottleneck.
With rising transaction volumes, users faced slow confirmations and skyrocketing fees. At its peak congestion, Bitcoin processed just 7 transactions per second, far behind traditional systems like Visa, which handles thousands per second.
Two competing visions emerged:
- One faction advocated for Segregated Witness (SegWit)—a soft fork that moved signature data off the main block, effectively increasing capacity without changing block size.
- The other pushed for larger blocks via a hard fork, arguing that true scalability must happen on-chain to preserve decentralization and usability as digital cash.
👉 Discover how blockchain innovations are reshaping digital payments today.
The 2017 Hard Fork: Birth of Bitcoin Cash
In August 2017, the network split. A new chain—Bitcoin Cash (BCH)—was born with an 8MB block size, later increased further. This was a bold statement: Bitcoin should be money, usable for everyday transactions, not just a store of value.
Supporters believed larger blocks enabled faster, cheaper payments—closer to Satoshi’s original vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Key figures like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu backed this move, seeing it as a necessary evolution.
SegWit2x, a proposed compromise combining SegWit with a future 2MB block increase, ultimately collapsed due to lack of consensus. The split was irreversible.
But peace didn’t last long.
The Split Within the Split: Bitcoin Cash ABC vs. Bitcoin SV
By 2018, even Bitcoin Cash was fracturing.
Enter Bitcoin Cash ABC
Bitcoin Cash ABC (Adjustable Blocksize Cap), led by developer Amaury Sechet, aimed to evolve BCH into a more versatile platform. It introduced:
- Larger block sizes (up to 32MB)
- Canonical Transaction Ordering Rule (CTOR)—a more efficient way to order transactions than Bitcoin’s TTOR
- Support for smart contracts and advanced scripting
ABC positioned itself as innovative and forward-looking, adapting to modern demands while staying true to on-chain scaling principles.
Rise of Bitcoin Cash SV
Opposition came swiftly from those who believed ABC had strayed too far. Leading the charge was Dr. Craig Wright, who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto (earning him the nickname “Faketoshi” among skeptics), alongside billionaire miner Calvin Ayre and his Coingeek mining pool.
Their alternative—Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV)—argued for a return to what they saw as the true original blueprint:
- Massive block sizes (eventually targeting terabyte-scale)
- Strict adherence to Bitcoin’s original protocol rules
- No smart contract ambitions—just pure, scalable electronic cash
BSV rejected CTOR and maintained a conservative development path, emphasizing stability and data integrity over innovation.
The Hash War: When Miners Went to Battle
What followed was no mere ideological debate—it became a mining war.
Both sides had access to significant hash power. BCH ABC had support from Bitmain’s Antpool; BSV had Coingeek and other pro-Wright miners. Each chain competed fiercely for dominance, using their mining resources to secure blocks and attract exchange listings.
This "Hash War" was costly:
- According to reports, BCH ABC lost $1.3 million with a negative profit margin of 51%
- BSV lost $2.2 million, suffering a staggering 441% negative return
- Millions were burned in electricity and opportunity cost
Exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, and Bittrex ultimately sided with BCH ABC, assigning it the BCH ticker—a major symbolic and economic victory.
BSV conceded defeat in branding, rebranding fully as Bitcoin SV (BSV) and dropping any claim to the “Bitcoin Cash” name.
👉 Learn how crypto networks maintain security during high-stakes forks and upgrades.
Market Performance: BCH vs. BSV After the War
Post-war, Bitcoin Cash (now commonly referred to as BCH) retained stronger market positioning.
As of early 2020:
- BCH price: $368.55 | **Market cap**: ~$6.72 billion
- BSV price: $284.05 | **Market cap**: ~$5.18 billion
Though BSV briefly surged—jumping over 300% in early 2020 to reach $372—it was short-lived. Much of the rally was attributed to increased media attention around Craig Wright’s legal battles rather than organic adoption.
Over time, confidence in BSV waned. Major platforms like Kraken and Binance delisted BSV, citing concerns over centralization and controversial leadership.
Today, BCH remains listed on most major exchanges and continues to function as a viable payment-focused cryptocurrency.
FAQ: Common Questions About the Bitcoin Cash Hash War
Q: What caused the Bitcoin Cash split in 2018?
A: The split stemmed from disagreements over development direction—specifically block size increases, transaction ordering (CTOR vs. TTOR), and whether to support smart contracts. These differences led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash SV.
Q: Who won the Hash War?
A: While no side achieved total destruction of the other, Bitcoin Cash ABC effectively won by retaining the BCH ticker, broader exchange support, and stronger market performance post-conflict.
Q: Is Bitcoin SV the same as Bitcoin Cash?
A: No. Though both originated from Bitcoin Cash, they are now separate blockchains with different goals—BCH focuses on scalable payments; BSV emphasizes massive blocks and data storage.
Q: Why did exchanges choose BCH over BSV?
A: Exchanges typically favor networks with stronger community consensus, developer activity, and decentralization. BCH was seen as more stable and widely adopted at the time of decision-making.
Q: Did the Hash War affect Bitcoin’s price?
A: Yes. The uncertainty and negative sentiment during the Hash War contributed to broader market declines in late 2018, including a drop in Bitcoin’s price to yearly lows.
Q: Can I still use both BCH and BSV today?
A: Yes. Both cryptocurrencies continue to operate independently. You can send, receive, and trade them on various platforms that support each chain.
👉 Compare real-time performance metrics of major cryptocurrencies here.
Final Thoughts: Ideology vs. Reality in Crypto Evolution
The saga of Bitcoin Cash ABC vs. Bitcoin Cash SV underscores a recurring theme in blockchain: visionary ideals often clash with practical realities.
While both sides claimed to uphold Satoshi’s vision, their interpretations diverged sharply—one favoring innovation and adaptability, the other rigid preservation.
Ultimately, market forces—not manifestos—decided the outcome. BCH survived with stronger momentum; BSV persists but with limited influence.
What remains clear is that decentralization brings both freedom and fragmentation. And as long as passionate believers exist in crypto, debates over “true” visions will continue—even if Satoshi himself never intended them.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin Cash ABC, Bitcoin Cash SV, Hash War, blockchain scalability, cryptocurrency fork, on-chain scaling, SegWit, CTOR