The world of cryptocurrency is one where history often repeats itself — but sometimes, the full story remains buried beneath layers of controversy, misinformation, and strategic silence. While Bitcoin now stands as a globally recognized digital asset, backed by institutions and celebrated in mainstream finance, its journey hasn’t been without existential threats.
One of the most critical moments in Bitcoin’s history occurred during the 2017–2018 period, when a powerful coalition attempted to reposition Bitcoin Cash (BCH) as the "true" Bitcoin through a technically sophisticated and economically aggressive strategy. At the center of this battle was an unexpected defender: a mining operation quietly using its own hash power to protect the network — Bitmain’s rival, CoinEx (often referred to as “Bixin” in historical context).
This is the untold story of how a small but determined force stood between Bitcoin and potential takeover — and why it matters today.
The Forgotten Crisis: When Bitcoin’s Name Was on the Line
Today, Bitcoin trades at record highs. Wall Street embraces it. Even skeptics like Elon Musk have publicly endorsed it. Its security model is rarely questioned.
But just a few years ago, Bitcoin faced its greatest threat since inception — not from hackers or regulators, but from within the crypto community itself.
In 2017, a faction led by Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu pushed for a hard fork of Bitcoin to create Bitcoin Cash (BCH), arguing that larger blocks would solve scalability issues. What started as a philosophical debate quickly turned into a high-stakes power struggle — one that threatened to replace Bitcoin entirely, both in name and in network dominance.
At the time, many believed that whichever chain had more hash power would be deemed the "real" Bitcoin. This principle gave rise to a dangerous game: a planned "hashrate attack" designed to destabilize the original Bitcoin network immediately after the fork.
And if not for a single entity stepping in with undisclosed resources, Bitcoin might have lost.
Why Did the BCH Camp Hate CoinEx So Much?
To outsiders, the Bitcoin fork may seem like just another crypto schism — common in decentralized communities. But back then, it was far more than ideology. It was war.
Friends turned enemies. Partners severed ties. The divide wasn’t just technical; it was personal, financial, and deeply emotional.
So why did the BCH faction harbor such intense animosity toward CoinEx?
Because CoinEx blocked their path to power.
By deploying its own mining resources to stabilize the BCH network post-fork — not to support BCH, but to prevent a sudden difficulty drop — CoinEx disrupted the core mechanism that made the attack possible.
This move effectively neutralized the "Emergency Difficulty Adjustment" (EDA) strategy — a clever but aggressive feature built into BCH that allowed it to slash mining difficulty when blocks weren’t found, making it temporarily more profitable than Bitcoin.
With difficulty unable to drop due to sustained mining activity, the economic incentive for miners to switch vanished. The ambush failed.
And because CoinEx acted independently — using its own capital and infrastructure — it single-handedly spoiled what many considered an unstoppable plan.
As one insider put it:
“Cutting off someone’s financial future feels like cutting off their lifeline. That’s exactly what happened.”
The Bitmain-CoinEx Feud: From Allies to Enemies
Before the split, relationships across the mining industry were close-knit. CoinEx’s founder, Yang Zuo Xing (also known as “Starfield” or “Xing Kong”), once dined regularly with Jihan Wu. They weren’t rivals — they were peers in building the crypto ecosystem.
But everything changed when Yang left ASICMiner (formerly “Fried Cat”) and founded MicroBT, manufacturer of WhatsMiner devices — direct competitors to Bitmain’s Antminers.
Why? Because he saw a problem: Bitmain’s monopoly on mining hardware posed a systemic risk to Bitcoin.
When one company controls most of the world’s hash power, decentralization is compromised. And in 2016, Bitmain was approaching that level of control.
To counterbalance this, CoinEx invested heavily in MicroBT — becoming one of its earliest and largest backers. So did Poolin’s “God Cat” and BTC.com’s Wang Chun. Their shared goal? Break Bitmain’s stranglehold.
Ironically, Bitmain had already begun rewarding loyalists with preferential access to miners — especially those supporting the BCH fork. Some buyers only paid 10% upfront, effectively leveraging 5x their算力 (hashrate).
This created a loyal army of pro-BCH miners — all funded by Bitmain.
Then came the fork.
When CoinEx began defending Bitcoin by mining on the BCH chain (to block EDA activation), Bitmain retaliated — not technically, but legally.
They filed a patent lawsuit against MicroBT over series power supply technology, claiming infringement. Though CoinEx wasn’t the direct target, it was named alongside MicroBT and mining farm operators.
The real goal? Force CoinEx’s miners out of their facilities.
And it worked.
Mining farms, fearing legal exposure, demanded CoinEx remove its equipment. Overnight, their hashrate disappeared — not by choice, but by coercion.
CoinEx lost weeks of mining revenue — estimated at nearly 100 BTC per day during peak resistance — totaling millions in losses at today’s prices.
But by then, the critical window had passed. The attack failed.
Why CoinEx Opposed Bitcoin Cash
It wasn’t ideological purity alone that drove CoinEx’s actions.
While many early crypto figures attended consensus meetings like Hong Kong and New York Agreement talks, cooperation broke down when the BCH camp adopted hostile tactics:
- Smear campaigns against core Bitcoin developers
- FUD spreading about Bitcoin being “too slow”
- Dusting attacks to artificially congest the network
- Aggressive marketing claiming “BCH is real Bitcoin”
These tactics mirrored predatory business practices — akin to antivirus companies creating viruses to sell solutions.
Even Amaury Séchet (aka “Aussie Craig”), who later championed BSV, initially supported BCH — only to turn on it months later and trigger another split.
The irony?
The very people who claimed to save Bitcoin ended up fracturing it further.
Moreover, BCH’s development was largely funded and directed by Bitmain — making it functionally a corporate coin, not a decentralized one.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with platform tokens like BNB — but when such a token tries to overthrow Bitcoin, it crosses a line.
For true believers in decentralization, letting a single company dictate the future of money was unacceptable.
How CoinEx Protected the Bitcoin Network
The brilliance of BCH’s EDA mechanism was also its flaw: it could be exploited offensively.
Here’s how it worked:
- If no block is found within 12 hours across 6 previous blocks → difficulty drops 20%
- Repeat until mining becomes profitable again
On paper, this ensured survival with minimal hashrate. In practice, it enabled a "hashrate heist":
- Launch BCH with initial support
- Withdraw all mining power → trigger EDA
- With ultra-low difficulty, mine BCH cheaply
- Attract global miners chasing profits
- Drain hash power from Bitcoin → cause congestion → declare victory
This wasn’t speculation — it was a well-funded plan ready for execution.
But CoinEx saw it coming.
Using its own miners, CoinEx flooded the BCH network with hash power immediately after launch. Blocks kept coming — every 10 minutes or less. No 12-hour gap meant no difficulty drop.
No drop meant no profit spike.
No profit spike meant no mass miner migration.
👉 Discover how modern exchanges help secure blockchain networks through responsible trading practices.
The ambush was foiled.
For two full weeks — one full difficulty adjustment cycle — CoinEx absorbed massive losses to keep Bitcoin safe. While others hesitated, they acted.
In crypto wars, courage isn’t measured in words — it’s measured in watts.
FAQ: Understanding the Bitcoin Fork & CoinEx’s Role
Q: Was Bitcoin Cash technically inferior to Bitcoin?
A: Not necessarily. BCH offered larger blocks (8MB vs 1MB), enabling faster and cheaper transactions. However, its centralized funding and aggressive tactics raised concerns about long-term viability and ideological alignment with Satoshi’s vision.
Q: Could BCH have actually replaced Bitcoin?
A: Yes — under specific conditions. If the EDA had triggered and attracted 10–15% of Bitcoin’s hashrate during a volatile period, exchanges and media might have recognized BCH as the dominant chain. Perception plays a huge role in which chain “wins.”
Q: Why didn’t other major pools help defend Bitcoin?
A: Mining pools cannot force users to mine a specific chain. Only entities with direct ownership of hardware — like CoinEx — could make independent decisions without risking user backlash or pool hopping.
Q: Is CoinEx still influential today?
A: While no longer dominating headlines, CoinEx remains active in mining and operates a global exchange. Its legacy lies in proving that decentralized defense is possible — even against well-funded adversaries.
Q: What happened to Bitmain after the fork?
A: Bitmain continued growing but faced internal conflicts between Wu and co-founder Micree Zhan. Eventually, Zhan was ousted, leading to further fragmentation in the mining industry — ironically validating early warnings about centralization risks.
Final Thoughts: Preserving Decentralization Against All Odds
The 2017 fork war wasn’t just about code or block size. It was about values — decentralization vs control, transparency vs manipulation, faith vs greed.
CoinEx didn’t act for fame or profit. In fact, they lost heavily in the short term. But by protecting Bitcoin during its weakest moment post-fork, they preserved something far greater: the integrity of the network.
Today, Bitcoin stands stronger than ever — more distributed, more secure, more resilient. That strength wasn’t guaranteed. It was earned.
And behind that success are unsung heroes who risked everything — not for glory, but for belief.
Long Bitcoin. Short manipulation.
👉 Stay ahead of market shifts with tools designed for both new and experienced crypto participants.
Core Keywords:
Bitcoin fork history, Bitcoin Cash EDA attack, CoinEx mining defense, Bitmain vs MicroBT, Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA), cryptocurrency network security, blockchain decentralization