Introduction: Bitcoin's Fragile Dominance
In 2023, Bitcoin stands unchallenged as the king of cryptocurrencies, with institutional investors and celebrities like Elon Musk endorsing its value. Yet just three years ago, Bitcoin faced its most existential threat - a calculated takeover attempt by the BCH faction that nearly dethroned the original blockchain.
Why BCH Faction Hated Bixin
The Stakes of Forking
- Cryptographic forks today seem routine, but the 2017 Bitcoin fork represented a philosophical schism comparable to religious wars
- Personal relationships shattered as proponents took opposing sides in what became a zero-sum ideological battle
The Financial Motivations
- Bixin disrupted BCH's financial ambitions during their critical two-week takeover window
- BCH proponents had heavily invested in their fork's success, converting BTC holdings to BCH
- Bixin's interventions prevented what could have been history's most lucrative blockchain coup
👉 Discover how modern exchanges handle fork assets
Bixin vs Bitmain: The Patent Wars
Technical Backstory: Series Power Supply
- Russian engineer Vasily pioneered the power-saving technology at Bitfury
- Acquired by ASICMiner (Shao Cong's company) where Yang Zuoxing further developed it
- Yang later brought the tech to Bitmain before founding Whatsminer
The Legal Conflict
- Bitmain sued Bixin Mining and Whatsminer for patent infringement in 2018
- Lawsuit strategically timed during peak fork tensions
- Though Bitmain lost the case, it forced Bixin to relocate mining operations
- Resulted in significant operational disruptions and financial losses
Bixin's Philosophical Opposition to BCH
Centralization Concerns
- BCH development overly reliant on Bitmain funding and personnel
- Contrasted with Bitcoin's decentralized governance model
Questionable Tactics
- BCH proponents engaged in "dust attacks" to artificially congest Bitcoin
- Similar to antivirus companies creating viruses to sell solutions
- Embraced controversial figure Craig Wright (aka "Faketoshi") for credibility
👉 Learn about decentralized mining alternatives
The Great Bitcoin Defense
Understanding EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjustment)
- BCH's ingenious mechanism automatically reduced mining difficulty
- Created economic incentive for miners to switch networks
- Designed to execute "hashrate bombardment" against Bitcoin
Bixin's Countermeasures
- Deployed proprietary hashrate to maintain BCH block production
- Prevented difficulty drops for 14 critical days
- Absorbed daily losses exceeding 100 BTC to protect Bitcoin
- Forced Bitmain to resume mining their own chain
FAQ: Bitcoin's Fork Crisis
Q: Could BCH have realistically replaced Bitcoin?
A: At peak planning, BCH controlled >50% of Bitcoin's hashrate and had coordinated exchange support. Their EDA strategy created a plausible path to dominance.
Q: Why didn't other pools help defend Bitcoin?
A: Only Bixin owned sufficient proprietary hashrate. Other pools relied on individual miners who would follow profitability.
Q: How much did Bixin ultimately lose?
A: Between mining losses and forced relocation, estimates suggest over 1,400 BTC (worth ~$70M today).
Q: What happened to the EDA mechanism?
A: BCH eventually abandoned it after the failed takeover attempt and subsequent BSV fork.
Q: Does this conflict still affect Bitcoin today?
A: The event demonstrated Bitcoin's anti-fragility. Current hashrate distribution is more decentralized as a result.
Conclusion: Principles Over Profit
Bixin's costly defense of Bitcoin exemplifies crypto's philosophical roots - where network integrity trumps short-term gain. While the financial losses were staggering, preserving Bitcoin's decentralized future proved priceless. As Bitcoin continues maturing, this chapter remains a testament to the community's resilience against centralized takeover attempts.
The cryptocurrency ecosystem evolves, but Bitcoin's immutable ledger ensures such pivotal moments remain permanently etched in its blocks - a decentralized history no single entity can rewrite.