Just four days after Ethereum’s controversial hard fork at block 1,920,000, the cryptocurrency mining community faces a reality few anticipated: the original, unforked Ethereum chain refuses to die. As of July 24, 2016, miners continue to direct significant hash power toward what the market now calls Ethereum Classic (ETC), creating an unprecedented two-chain reality that challenges fundamental assumptions about blockchain governance and miner behavior.
TL;DR
- Ethereum’s DAO bailout hard fork on July 20 created two competing chains: ETH (forked) and ETC (original)
- Miners were expected to abandon the original chain within hours — instead, they kept mining it
- Poloniex became the first major exchange to list ETC trading on July 23, legitimizing the surviving chain
- Ethereum Classic supporters formed independent social channels on July 24, signaling permanent community fracture
- Bitcoin miners simultaneously adjust to the post-halving landscape with rewards now at 12.5 BTC per block
The Hard Fork That Split a Blockchain
On July 20, 2016, the Ethereum Foundation executed a contentious hard fork designed to recover approximately 3.6 million ETH stolen from The DAO, a decentralized investment fund that raised $150 million in its April crowdsale. The fork, activated at block 1,920,000, introduced an irregular state change that moved funds from the attacker’s child DAO back to a recovery contract.
The overwhelming majority of nodes — roughly 80 percent — upgraded to the new forked client. Ethereum Foundation members and prominent developers declared the fork a success, with many in the community popping champagne as the recovery mechanism functioned without obvious technical flaws. ETH prices held steady around $12.75, while Bitcoin traded near $661.
But beneath the celebration, something unexpected was happening. A contingent of miners refused to abandon the original, unaltered chain. Their reasoning varied — some believed deeply in the principle of blockchain immutability, others saw economic opportunity, and still others simply rejected the precedent of rewriting blockchain history to bail out a failed smart contract.
Miners Keep the Original Chain Alive
The prevailing assumption before the fork was straightforward: once the vast majority of hash power migrated to the new chain, the original chain would become economically unviable to mine and would simply stop producing blocks within hours. This assumption proved spectacularly wrong.
By July 24, four days after the fork, miners continued to find blocks on the original chain. The hashrate, while significantly lower than the forked chain, remained sufficient to maintain block production and network security. This persistence created a genuine dilemma for the broader ecosystem: two chains sharing identical transaction histories up to block 1,920,000, but diverging irreversibly thereafter.
The mining dynamics were further complicated by replay attacks. Because both chains shared the same account structure and transaction format, a transaction broadcast on one chain could potentially be replayed on the other. Miners and users navigating this dual-chain environment faced real technical challenges that required careful handling of funds across both networks.
Poloniex Breaks the Ice
On July 23, Poloniex — at the time the largest Ethereum exchange by trading volume — made the bold decision to list the original chain’s token under the ticker ETC. This move transformed Ethereum Classic from a theoretical curiosity into a tradeable asset with real price discovery. The listing sent shockwaves through the Ethereum community, as it signaled that the original chain had genuine market demand rather than being a temporary aberration.
The decision by Poloniex was not without controversy. Many Ethereum supporters argued that listing ETC legitimized what they viewed as an attack on the Ethereum ecosystem. Others countered that exchanges were simply responding to market demand and that suppressing trade would be antithetical to the open, permissionless ethos of cryptocurrency.
A Community Fractures
By July 24, the split extended beyond technology and markets into the social fabric of the Ethereum community. Ethereum Classic supporters formally branched off from the main Ethereum subreddits and established their own social channels. What began as a technical disagreement about how to handle The DAO hack had evolved into a genuine ideological schism about the fundamental principles of blockchain governance.
The ETC camp positioned itself around the principle of immutability — the idea that blockchain history should never be altered, regardless of the circumstances. The ETH camp argued that the exceptional circumstances of The DAO hack, which threatened the entire Ethereum ecosystem’s viability, justified extraordinary intervention.
Bitcoin Miners Navigate Post-Halving Waters
While Ethereum’s mining community grappled with an unprecedented chain split, Bitcoin miners were adjusting to their own new reality. Just two weeks earlier, on July 9, 2016, Bitcoin underwent its second halving event, reducing the block reward from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC. At Bitcoin’s current price near $661, this meant miners saw their per-block revenue effectively cut in half — from approximately $16,525 to $8,263.
The halving’s impact on Bitcoin mining profitability was substantial but largely anticipated. Mining operations with access to cheap electricity and efficient hardware continued operating profitably, while marginal miners were forced to reassess their positions. The network’s difficulty adjustment mechanism, which retargets every 2,016 blocks, gradually brought mining economics back into equilibrium.
The juxtaposition of Bitcoin’s orderly, predictable halving with Ethereum’s chaotic chain split highlighted a fundamental difference in how the two largest cryptocurrencies handle protocol evolution. Bitcoin’s consensus rules changed through a scheduled, widely-understood mechanism, while Ethereum’s fork represented an emergency intervention with unforeseen and far-reaching consequences.
Why This Matters
The events of July 2016 represent a watershed moment in cryptocurrency history. Bitcoin’s second halving demonstrated the network’s ability to execute planned monetary policy adjustments smoothly. Meanwhile, the birth of Ethereum Classic proved that blockchain forks cannot be resolved simply by declaring consensus — when enough participants disagree, a competing chain can survive and thrive.
For miners, the lesson was clear: hash power follows incentives, not declarations. The miners who continued supporting the original Ethereum chain were not acting out of spite or confusion — they were responding to genuine market signals and ideological conviction. As the cryptocurrency ecosystem continues to mature, the tension between governance by social consensus and governance by hash power remains one of its most fundamental and unresolved challenges.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and readers should conduct their own research before making any investment decisions.
80% of nodes upgraded to the forked chain and people still mined ETC. hash power follows principle sometimes, not just profit
Poloniex listing ETC on July 23 gave miners an immediate market to sell into. Without that listing, the chain might actually have died.
btc at $661 post-halving, eth at $12.75 post-fork. miners splitting between two eth chains while btc miners adjusted to 12.5 rewards. wild times