In August 2017, Bitcoin Cash successfully hard-forked from the Bitcoin network with a clear mission: to fulfill what its proponents saw as Bitcoin’s original promise—digital cash with fast transactions and low fees. But history repeated itself in November 2018 when the Bitcoin Cash network fractured, giving rise to Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (Bitcoin SV), setting off what would become known as the "hash war."
This contentious split wasn’t just about technical disagreements—it was a clash of ideologies, egos, and visions for the future of blockchain. Six months on, it's time to assess how both networks have evolved, where they stand in terms of mining power, scalability, and real-world usage, and what their trajectories suggest for the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The Origins of the Split
In August 2018, Bitcoin Cash proposed a protocol upgrade via Bitcoin ABC (version 0.18.0), introducing two key changes:
- Canonical Transaction Ordering (CTOR): A rule requiring transactions in each block to follow a specific sequence, improving predictability and efficiency.
- OP_CHECKDATASIG: A new scripting opcode enabling smart contract-like functionality such as oracles and atomic swaps.
These upgrades aimed to expand Bitcoin Cash’s utility beyond simple payments into more complex decentralized applications. However, a faction led by Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre strongly opposed the changes. They argued that such features deviated from Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision of peer-to-peer electronic cash and posed security risks.
On November 15, 2018, this group launched Bitcoin SV with a radical 128 MB block size limit—four times larger than Bitcoin Cash’s 32 MB—and committed to preserving what they claimed was the "true" Bitcoin protocol. The hard fork was contentious, lacking replay protection initially, which put both chains at risk.
👉 Discover how blockchain forks shape digital asset evolution.
Mining Dynamics: The Costly Hash War
Both Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) use SHA-256, meaning the same mining hardware can secure all three networks: BTC, BCH, and BSV. This shared infrastructure set the stage for an intense hash war.
Unlike typical forks where chains diverge peacefully, some BSV supporters—including nChain’s Craig Wright—openly advocated for a 51% attack on BCH to dominate hash power and force miners to abandon the network. The strategy? Mine empty blocks or orphan legitimate ones to make BCH mining unprofitable.
In response, major BCH backers like Bitmain’s Jihan Wu and Roger Ver redirected massive mining resources from Bitcoin to bolster BCH’s security. Bitmain reportedly deployed 90,000 Antminer S9s ahead of the fork.
For a brief period, hash rates fluctuated wildly. At times, BSV briefly overtook BCH in hashing power. But within days, BCH stabilized with stronger support. By mid-December, research from BitMEX revealed staggering losses: $3.45 million for BCH miners**, **$2.49 million for BSV miners—all spent in a race to survive.
The war ended when BSV implemented replay protection and accepted a permanent split. Today, BCH maintains 2.13 exahashes per second, while BSV lags at 447 petahashes—nearly five times less. This outcome underscores a critical lesson: while ideological battles may ignite forks, economic sustainability ultimately determines survival.
Block Size: Bigger Isn’t Always Better
One of BSV’s most touted features is its 128 MB block size, quadruple BCH’s 32 MB. Proponents argue larger blocks enable greater scalability and enterprise use cases—like storing invoices, supply chain records, or legal contracts directly on-chain.
As Craig Wright stated, BSV aims to become a “commodity layer” for business data infrastructure—secure, immutable, and globally accessible.
Yet in practice, neither chain comes close to utilizing their capacity:
- Bitcoin SV: Average block size ≈ 340 KB (0.3% of limit)
- Bitcoin Cash: Average block size ≈ 176 KB (0.5% of limit)
Despite BSV’s massive headroom, transaction demand remains minimal. Moreover, large blocks introduce technical challenges. In April 2019, BitMEX researchers observed two block reorganizations on BSV involving 107 MB and 128 MB blocks—evidence that such sizes may strain network propagation and increase centralization risks.
While bigger blocks offer theoretical advantages, real-world performance shows that throughput without demand leads to underutilized infrastructure.
👉 Explore platforms enabling next-generation blockchain innovation.
Transaction Volume: Usage Tells the Real Story
Both BCH and BSV claim adherence to Bitcoin’s original vision—fast, cheap digital cash. But actual usage paints a different picture.
After the fork:
- BCH saw a spike to nearly 900,000 daily transactions on November 18.
- BSV surged even higher—briefly hitting 4 million transactions that same day.
However, these were largely artificial spikes driven by exchange activity and internal chain operations. In the months since:
- BCH settled around 10,000–50,000 transactions/day
- BSV averages ~10,000/day, with occasional spikes to 450,000
Compare this to Bitcoin, which consistently processes ~380,000 transactions/day—despite higher fees ($1.03 median vs. $0.00078 for BCH and $0.00029 for BSV).
Low fees haven’t translated into widespread adoption. Why? Because convenience, merchant integration, and user experience matter more than blockchain specs alone. Credit cards and platforms like PayPal still dominate daily payments.
Crucially, BSV isn't primarily targeting consumer payments. As Jimmy Nguyen of nChain explains, BSV is building toward enterprise-grade blockchain solutions—tokenization, supply chain tracking, data integrity layers. Its focus is long-term infrastructure development rather than immediate transaction volume.
Market Impact and Long-Term Outlook
The aftermath of the fork reveals a sobering reality: value was destroyed, not created.
One month before the split, Bitcoin Cash had a market cap of $9 billion**. Six months later, the combined market cap of BCH and BSV stood at just **$6 billion—a 33% decline.
This contrasts sharply with the 2017 BTC/BCH split, where total value increased post-fork. The hash war damaged confidence, drained capital from miners, and fragmented developer attention.
Today, both chains coexist but serve different purposes:
- Bitcoin Cash: Focused on fast, low-cost peer-to-peer payments.
- Bitcoin SV: Betting on enterprise adoption through massive scalability and data storage.
Only time will tell which model gains traction beyond niche communities.
👉 Stay ahead in crypto with tools built for tomorrow’s blockchain leaders.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What caused the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV split?
A: The split stemmed from disagreements over protocol upgrades like CTOR and OP_CHECKDATASIG. BSV supporters believed these changes violated Bitcoin’s original design principles.
Q: Did the hash war destroy either chain?
A: No. Despite attempts to overwhelm BCH with hash power, both chains survived and now operate independently with replay protection.
Q: Which has lower transaction fees—BCH or BSV?
A: BSV currently has lower median fees at $0.00029 compared to BCH’s $0.00078.
Q: Are large block sizes beneficial for blockchain networks?
A: Not necessarily. While larger blocks allow more transactions, they can create centralization risks and require faster bandwidth—challenges not yet fully resolved on BSV.
Q: Is Bitcoin SV more scalable than Bitcoin Cash?
A: Theoretically yes due to its 128 MB block limit, but actual usage remains low on both chains.
Q: Can either BCH or BSV replace traditional payment systems?
A: Not yet. Despite technical advantages in speed and cost, adoption lags behind centralized alternatives like credit cards and digital wallets.
Keywords integrated naturally throughout: Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, hash war, hard fork, transaction volume, block size, mining hash power, digital cash.