The world of cryptocurrency is no stranger to hard forks, and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has long been one of the most frequent participants in blockchain splits. On November 15, 2025, BCH underwent yet another network upgrade—technically a hard fork—sparking debate within its community. Yet unlike previous forks that drew global attention, this one passed with surprisingly little fanfare.
At block height 661648, mined by AntPool, the network split officially took place. While markets reacted briefly—Huobi data showed BCH briefly dropping to $236 before recovering to around $244—the overall price movement was muted, with a daily drop of nearly 5%. The lack of excitement reflects a broader trend: growing fatigue within the crypto community toward repeated protocol disputes and ideological battles over funding models and development control.
The Core of the Conflict: Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP)
At the heart of this hard fork lies the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP)—a controversial proposal introduced by the Bitcoin ABC team. Under IFP, 8% of each block’s mining reward would be redirected to fund core development teams, particularly Bitcoin ABC itself, through a newly formed Global Network Council.
This mechanism, often dubbed a “miner tax,” has sparked fierce opposition. Critics argue it contradicts the decentralized ethos of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. They claim that forcing miners to contribute part of their rewards sets a dangerous precedent—effectively creating a mandatory tax controlled by a small, opaque group.
👉 Discover how blockchain governance shapes crypto value—explore insights now.
The Global Network Council, composed of major miners and large stakeholders, has promised transparency but so far revealed little about its membership criteria or fund distribution process. This lack of clarity fuels suspicion that Bitcoin ABC could disproportionately benefit, further centralizing development power.
Bitcoin Cash Node Rises in Opposition
In response to IFP, a new client—Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN)—emerged as the primary challenger. Forked from Bitcoin ABC’s codebase, BCHN removed the IFP entirely and positioned itself as the true representative of community-driven development.
Developers and users backing BCHN emphasize decentralization, transparency, and organic growth. Their stance resonates with many long-time supporters who view forced funding as incompatible with sound monetary principles.
But the conflict isn’t just ideological—it’s technical too.
Difficulty Adjustment Drama: ASERT vs. Grasberg
Both Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin Cash Node implemented a new difficulty adjustment algorithm to stabilize block production times. Originally, Bitcoin ABC proposed Grasberg, an algorithm designed to correct “historical drift” caused by past fluctuations in mining power.
However, Grasberg faced backlash for potentially slowing down block generation over years—an outcome some saw as artificial manipulation. In response to community pressure, Bitcoin ABC abandoned Grasberg in favor of ASERT, a more neutral and widely accepted algorithm also used in other cryptocurrencies.
This compromise meant both clients now share the same difficulty adjustment logic—making their chains technically compatible except for one key difference: the presence or absence of IFP.
Why Did Bitcoin ABC Release Two Versions?
In a strategic pivot, Bitcoin ABC released two versions of its software:
- One includes the IFP.
- The other excludes it, aligning fully with Bitcoin Cash Node.
While both versions are available, only the IFP-enabled version will receive ongoing development support. The non-IFP version will be maintained minimally to ensure compatibility but won’t see future upgrades like flexible block sizing or reduced risk of transaction malleability.
This move suggests an attempt to appease critics while still pushing forward with their funding vision.
Will This Fork Actually Split the Token?
Not necessarily—and here's why.
A token split only occurs if both chains attract enough mining power to sustain independent block production. As of now, Bitcoin Cash Node commands over 80% of the network’s hash rate, while Bitcoin ABC lags behind at less than 1%.
Major exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, and BitGo have thrown their support behind BCHN, signaling strong market confidence. If this dominance continues, Bitcoin ABC’s chain may fail to gain traction.
Interestingly, due to shared protocol rules (especially after adopting ASERT), Bitcoin Cash Node can technically follow the Bitcoin ABC chain if it becomes dominant—a soft-fork-like scenario. However, since BCHN doesn’t enforce IFP, blocks without miner taxes would simply be rejected by IFP-compliant miners.
👉 See how hash rate dominance influences which chain survives after a fork.
Thus, unless Bitcoin ABC regains significant mining support, BCHN is likely to become the de facto continuation of Bitcoin Cash, possibly retaining the "BCH" ticker on major platforms.
What Happens After the Fork?
If Bitcoin ABC somehow gains majority hash power—even briefly—it could trigger a chain collapse for BCHN. Within ten blocks, orphaned chains could vanish, wiping out transactions and balances on the weaker side.
However, given current trends, this scenario seems unlikely. More probable is that Bitcoin ABC evolves into a separate cryptocurrency altogether—potentially named Bitcoin ABC (BAB)—while BCHN carries forward the legacy of decentralized peer-to-peer cash.
What Should BCH Holders Do?
If you hold BCH in a personal wallet with full control over your private keys:
- No immediate action is needed.
- After the fork stabilizes, you may have access to tokens on both chains (if both survive).
- Avoid sending funds before and immediately after the fork—neither client implements replay protection, meaning a transaction on one chain could be duplicated on the other.
Wait until the situation clarifies and confirm which chain your wallet software supports.
For those storing BCH on exchanges:
- Most major platforms have announced support policies.
- Some will credit users with both tokens; others will support only one (typically BCHN).
- If uncertain, consider withdrawing funds to a self-hosted wallet post-fork for greater control.
👉 Learn secure post-fork strategies for protecting your digital assets today.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the main difference between Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin Cash Node?
A: The key difference is the Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP). Bitcoin ABC enforces an 8% miner tax to fund development, while Bitcoin Cash Node rejects it entirely, promoting organic funding and decentralization.
Q: Is there replay protection between the two chains?
A: No. Neither Bitcoin ABC nor Bitcoin Cash Node has implemented replay protection. Sending BCH on one chain risks replicating the transaction on the other.
Q: Which chain is considered the “real” Bitcoin Cash?
A: As of now, Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN) holds over 80% of network hash rate and broader community support from exchanges and developers—making it the most likely successor to BCH.
Q: Could Bitcoin ABC still win the hash war?
A: Technically yes—if it attracts sustained mining power. But given current momentum and lack of exchange backing, this outcome appears increasingly unlikely.
Q: Will I lose my funds during this fork?
A: Not if you take precautions. Avoid transactions around the fork time and wait for clarity. If using an exchange, check their official policy on token handling.
Q: What happens to old BCH wallets after the fork?
A: Wallets need updates to recognize new chain rules. Use updated software that supports either BCHN or ABC depending on which chain you wish to interact with.
Core Keywords
Bitcoin Cash, hard fork, Infrastructure Funding Plan, Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Cash Node, blockchain split, miner tax, ASERT algorithm