The much-anticipated Bitcoin Cash hard fork of November 2018 didn’t just split a cryptocurrency—it ignited global speculation, fueled ideological battles, and briefly threatened the stability of one of the most prominent Bitcoin forks. Two weeks after the split, the dust has largely settled. What emerged was less a war and more a strategic retreat, with market forces and community consensus shaping the outcome more than hash power ever could.
This article explores the aftermath of the Bitcoin Cash split, focusing on key developments in the second week post-fork, including the de-escalation of the so-called "hash war," the evolving identities of Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV, and how the broader crypto ecosystem has adapted.
The End of the Hash War
When Bitcoin Cash split into Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHABC) and Bitcoin Cash SV (BCHSV), many expected chaos. Proponents of Bitcoin SV, led by controversial figure Craig Steven Wright and billionaire miner Calvin Ayre, had openly threatened a 51% attack to eliminate the competing chain. This declaration sparked fears of a “hash war”—a costly and destabilizing battle for blockchain dominance through mining power.
Yet, in practice, the war never materialized.
Despite Wright’s warnings, no successful 51% attacks occurred. Analysts believe this was due to two critical defensive moves by the Bitcoin ABC team:
- Increased hash power support from allied mining pools
- Implementation of checkpointing, a security measure that prevents deep chain reorganizations
Instead of launching attacks, Bitcoin SV miners engaged in what Wright called an “endurance attack”—maintaining high hash rate pressure in hopes that BCHABC would eventually collapse under economic strain. For over a week, both chains consumed more computational power than their block rewards justified, leading to massive losses for miners—estimated in the millions of dollars.
By day ten, however, the conflict began to wind down. CoinGeek, Ayre’s media outlet, issued a press release signaling support for a permanent split, effectively conceding that coexistence—not conquest—was the new reality. Steve Shadders, technical director of Bitcoin SV, committed to implementing replay protection, ensuring transactions on one chain wouldn’t accidentally affect the other.
👉 Discover how blockchain security evolves during high-stakes network splits.
With this move, hash rates on both chains dropped significantly. While BCHABC retained a stronger position, both networks stabilized—marking the unofficial end of the hash war.
Craig Wright, Calvin Ayre, and the Identity Narrative
The post-fork drama didn’t end with mining. At the CoinGeek Week Conference in London, Wright and Ayre took center stage to promote Bitcoin SV as the true successor to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision.
Wright unveiled an ambitious plan to "transform the internet" using Bitcoin SV’s large-block architecture, positioning it as a scalable platform for global data transactions. Ayre doubled down, asserting in interviews that Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin—a claim rooted more in ideology than technical consensus.
Then came a curious incident.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s long-dormant P2P Foundation account briefly reactivated. It followed a user named Wagner Tamanaha and posted a single word: “nour”—Arabic for “light.” Minutes later, Wright tweeted: “Some seek a world of shadows… We seek a universe of light,” followed by an Arabic tweet: “Light is chasing the darkness.”
While these actions prove nothing legally or technically, they were widely interpreted as an attempt by Wright to link himself to Satoshi Nakamoto—a claim he’s made before but never substantiated with verifiable evidence.
Meanwhile, Ayre had previously promised to release documents exposing market manipulation involving key figures from the Bitcoin Cash ABC camp—Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Amaury Séchet, and Jesse Powell. As of now, no such evidence has surfaced, and with CoinGeek Week concluded, expectations for disclosure have faded.
In a separate development, Ayre announced that CoinGeek would be acquired by Squire Mining Ltd., forming what they claim will be the world’s largest publicly traded cryptocurrency mining operation—a move that may bolster Bitcoin SV’s long-term infrastructure.
Market Adaptation and Chain Identity
Two weeks after the split, clarity has emerged: both chains are here to stay.
The crypto industry has largely agreed on naming conventions:
- Bitcoin Cash (BCH) refers to the Bitcoin Cash ABC chain
- Bitcoin SV (BSV) is used for the competing fork
This standardization has helped exchanges, wallets, and services integrate both coins smoothly. Most platforms that previously supported BCH now default to BCHABC as “Bitcoin Cash.” Exceptions exist—like the blogging platform Yours, which migrated to BSV—but they remain rare.
Price Performance and Market Position
Market sentiment has favored BCHABC in the short term:
- BCHABC traded between $150 and $200 in week two
- BCHSV fluctuated between $75 and $100—still a significant recovery from its initial post-fork lows
Though BCHSV’s price has improved, the gap between the two remains notable. However, market capitalization rankings tell a different story. Bitcoin SV made headlines by debuting on CoinMarketCap, briefly reaching 7th place and currently holding 9th. BCHABC, once a top-4 cryptocurrency, has slipped to 5th.
👉 See how real-time market data influences cryptocurrency valuations post-fork.
Exchange Challenges and Technical Hiccups
Not all transitions were seamless. Poloniex experienced withdrawal issues for both BCHABC and BCHSV shortly after the split. The cause remains unclear, but the exchange resolved the problem within two days—a reminder that even major platforms can struggle with complex network changes.
Still, these were minor setbacks in an otherwise orderly adaptation process.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What caused the Bitcoin Cash hard fork?
A: The split stemmed from ideological and technical disagreements—primarily over block size limits and development direction—between the Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV factions.
Q: Was there actually a hash war?
A: Despite threats of 51% attacks, no successful attacks occurred. The so-called "hash war" ended with both chains agreeing to coexist.
Q: Is Bitcoin SV really "the original Bitcoin"?
A: This is a claim made by its supporters. Technically and historically, Bitcoin (BTC) remains the original blockchain. BSV’s assertion is more philosophical than factual.
Q: Can I still use my old Bitcoin Cash wallet?
A: Yes—but you likely control private keys for both BCHABC and BSV. To spend safely, ensure your wallet supports replay protection or split your holdings properly.
Q: Which chain has more long-term potential?
A: BCHABC currently leads in adoption and exchange support. BSV bets on massive scalability and enterprise use. Long-term success depends on developer activity and real-world use cases.
Q: Did Craig Wright prove he’s Satoshi Nakamoto?
A: No. His recent tweets referencing “light” were symbolic but offered no verifiable proof. The crypto community remains skeptical.
👉 Learn how to securely manage assets after a cryptocurrency fork.
Final Thoughts
The Bitcoin Cash “hash war” was less a battle and more a high-stakes demonstration of how cryptocurrency networks respond to existential threats. What could have been a destructive conflict ended in coexistence—a testament to resilient protocol design and market-driven resolution.
While drama surrounded personalities like Wright and Ayre, the real story lies in how quickly the ecosystem adapted: naming conventions stabilized, exchanges integrated both chains, and users navigated complex technical changes with minimal disruption.
As both Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV move forward, their competition will no longer be fought with hash power—but with innovation, adoption, and trust.
Core Keywords: Bitcoin Cash, hard fork, hash war, Bitcoin SV, blockchain split, cryptocurrency mining, BCHABC, BSV