The cryptocurrency mining landscape underwent a dramatic transformation on November 10, 2017, as the sudden cancellation of the SegWit2x hard fork sent shockwaves through Bitcoin mining operations worldwide. With the controversial upgrade officially off the table, miners found themselves recalibrating strategies in real time, while Bitcoin Cash emerged as the unexpected beneficiary of the chaos.
TL;DR
- The SegWit2x hard fork was suspended, eliminating a planned block size increase to 2MB for Bitcoin
- Bitcoin dropped below $7,000, falling over $1,000 from its all-time high of $7,888 set just two days earlier
- Bitcoin Cash surged more than 52% in 24 hours, reaching $1,007 as hashrate began migrating
- Bitcoin mining profitability shifted as the network hash rate faced potential redistribution
- Miners weighed the economics of BCH versus BTC mining in a rapidly changing landscape
The SegWit2x Fallout and Mining Implications
The SegWit2x proposal, born from the New York Agreement in May 2017, aimed to double Bitcoin block size to 2MB. For miners, this was more than a technical debate — it represented a fundamental question about which chain would attract the most hash power and, consequently, generate the most revenue. When the upgrade was suspended on November 8, miners who had been positioning for the fork suddenly faced a new reality.
Bitcoin, which had rallied to an all-time high of $7,888 on Wednesday November 8 following the initial SegWit2x cancellation news, began a sharp correction. By Friday November 10, BTC had fallen below $7,000, trading at $6,618 — a drop of roughly 16% from its peak. The 24-hour decline stood at nearly 8%, with the weekly loss approaching the same figure.
Bitcoin Cash Captures the Mining Narrative
The most striking development for miners was the explosive movement in Bitcoin Cash. BCH surged 52.47% in just 24 hours, reaching $1,007.42 on CoinMarketCap. Over a seven-day period, the gains were even more impressive at nearly 58%. The surge was driven in part by expectations that hash power previously committed to SegWit2x would find a new home on the Bitcoin Cash network, which already operated with larger block sizes.
For mining operations, the economics were compelling to evaluate. Bitcoin Cash, originally created from an August 1 hard fork, was suddenly trading above $1,000 with strong momentum. Some mining pools began signaling interest in redirecting hash rate toward BCH, attracted by both the rising price and the block reward economics that made the switch potentially lucrative.
Hashrate Redistribution Underway
With SegWit2x off the table, the mining community faced a practical dilemma. Significant hash rate had been reserved or positioned in anticipation of the fork. Miners who supported larger blocks now had a clear alternative in Bitcoin Cash, and the price surge made that alternative increasingly attractive from a revenue perspective.
The situation created a rare dynamic where Bitcoin mining — typically the most profitable proof-of-work chain by a wide margin — faced genuine competition for hash rate from an alternative chain. While BTC still commanded the majority of global SHA-256 mining power, the shift in sentiment was palpable across mining forums and communities.
Litecoin, another prominent mining target, also saw declines of 8.63% on the day, trading at $59.26. Dash managed to buck the trend slightly with a modest 0.83% gain at $329.57, offering a small but notable alternative for GPU miners.
Why This Matters
The events of November 10, 2017 highlighted a critical truth about cryptocurrency mining: it is ultimately driven by economics, not ideology. When SegWit2x collapsed, miners did not simply stay put — they began evaluating where their hash rate would generate the best returns. The Bitcoin Cash surge demonstrated that mining power is fluid and will flow toward the most profitable chain. For the broader mining industry, this episode served as a wake-up call about the risks of planning around proposed forks and the importance of maintaining flexible mining strategies that can adapt to sudden protocol changes.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency mining involves significant risk and technical complexity. Always conduct your own research before making mining investment decisions.
miners switching to bch en masse was the original hash war. roger ver really thought he could pull it off
ver put millions into promoting bcash as the real bitcoin. absolute masterclass in sunk cost fallacy
roger ver burning millions on bcash propaganda while BTC just kept chugging along. the market chose and it wasnt even close
hakan nailed it. roger ver burned millions on bcash propaganda while BTC just kept running. the market chose and it wasnt even close
Burak Y. ver basically tried to buy the brand. BCH at $1007 for 2 weeks then bled out for years. sunk cost fallacy on a billion dollar scale
the 2017 hash war was the stress test BTC needed. proved the network could survive a coordinated attack from within
the hashrate migration to bch lasted about 2 weeks before everyone came back. mining follows profit, not ideology
olga is right. mining follows profit not ideology. the hashrate migration to BCH lasted like 2 weeks before everyone came back to BTC
mining follows profit not ideology could not be more true. the second BCH difficulty adjusted down they all jumped, then came right back when BTC was more profitable again
btc dropping from $7888 to below $7000 in 48 hours while BCH pumped 52%. that was the moment miners realized they could vote with hashpower
Aukje V. the NY agreement was dead before it started. half the signers backed out privately while publicly pretending they were still on board. classic crypto politics
Aukje V. miners realized in 48 hours that BCH difficulty adjustments work both ways. hashpower follows revenue and BTC was still 50x more profitable after the initial flip
BCH surging 52% in 24h on pure hashrate migration was the most obvious momentum play of 2017. miners follow revenue, period
the NYA signatories backing out 2 weeks before activation showed how hollow the agreement really was. no enforcement mechanism means no agreement
The New York Agreement had 58 signatories and half of them backed out privately while pretending to be on board. no enforcement mechanism means it was just a PR stunt from the start
nya_ghost_ 58 signatories and zero enforcement. the NYA was a gentleman agreement in an industry with no gentlemen. absolute farce in retrospect
nya_archive_ 58 signatories and the moment BTC dropped below 7K half of them panic sold their positions. the agreement was signed in profit and abandoned at a loss. pure incentives
signed in profit, abandoned at a loss. the whole industry summarized in one agreement, paper promises only hold while the pnl does
BCH surged 52% on hashrate migration and then bled out for 5 years. miners followed profit for 2 weeks and came back to BTC. ideology doesnt pay the electricity bill
Joaquin V. exactly. the 2MB block size increase was a reasonable technical proposal that got turned into a political movement. BTC dropped $1000 in 48h for absolutely nothing
BCH at $1007 for about 72 hours before reality set in. anyone who swapped BTC for BCH during the hashrate migration got absolutely destroyed. miners played both sides perfectly
72 hours at 1007 then five years of bleed. everyone who mocked btc holders during the migration held the actual bag on the other chain
swapped at 1007 watching the emergency adjustment load and felt like a genius for about two days. miners farmed the spike and went home, retail held the mirror
btc stayed something like 50x more profitable to mine and every ideology argument died the second bch difficulty adjusted. hash follows revenue, always has
Right, and the flip side is what it did to BCH difficulty. Two emergency adjustments in a week while BTC miners pointed just enough hash at BCH to farm the spike, then left. Miners follow revenue and the emergency adjustments proved it twice over.