As Bitcoin’s scaling debate reached a boiling point in mid-November 2017, one cryptocurrency emerged as the clear beneficiary of the SegWit2x collapse: Bitcoin Cash. The forked cryptocurrency surged past $1,000 on November 16, attracting users frustrated by Bitcoin’s soaring transaction fees and congested network.
The exodus from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash was driven by a stark practical reality. While Bitcoin transaction fees ballooned to approximately $15 per transaction, Bitcoin Cash offered median fees of just $0.07 — a difference so dramatic that it reshaped the competitive landscape of digital currencies virtually overnight.
TL;DR
- Bitcoin Cash surged past $1,000 as users sought refuge from Bitcoin’s $15+ transaction fees
- BCH median transaction fee: $0.07 compared to Bitcoin’s $10-$15
- Bitcoin Cash features 8MB blocks vs Bitcoin’s 1MB limit, enabling faster and cheaper transactions
- Kraken reported $50.9 million in BCH trading volume on November 16
- The SegWit2x cancellation left Bitcoin without a clear scaling path forward
The Scaling Vacuum
When Mike Belshe, CEO of BitGo, announced the cancellation of SegWit2x on November 8, he cited a desire to keep the community united. But the decision left Bitcoin without an immediate solution to its most pressing problem: blocks were full, transactions were slow, and fees were becoming prohibitively expensive for everyday use.
The SegWit2x proposal would have doubled Bitcoin’s block size from 1MB to 2MB, a modest increase intended to provide temporary relief while longer-term solutions like the Lightning Network were developed. It had the backing of the New York Agreement signatories, including mining giant Bitmain, payment processor BitPay, and exchange Coinbase, with over 80% of hash rate signaling support.
However, Bitcoin Core developers opposed the fork on several grounds. The SegWit2x code lacked replay protection, creating a risk that transactions on one chain could be duplicated on the other. They also objected to what they saw as a corporate power grab — a small group of executives negotiating protocol changes behind closed doors, contrary to Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos.
Why Bitcoin Cash Won the Aftermath
In the wake of the SegWit2x cancellation, Bitcoin Cash presented itself as the natural alternative for users who prioritized on-chain scaling. With 8MB blocks — eight times larger than Bitcoin’s 1MB limit — Bitcoin Cash could process significantly more transactions per block, keeping fees low and confirmation times fast.
The timing was critical. Bitcoin’s average transaction fee had already surpassed $6 on November 8. By November 16, as network congestion worsened and transaction volume continued to climb, fees had escalated to approximately $15. For users sending smaller amounts, Bitcoin had become genuinely impractical. PayPal, credit cards, and debit cards were suddenly cheaper alternatives for digital payments.
Bitcoin Cash also addressed one of the key objections raised against SegWit2x: it included replay protection, ensuring that transactions on one chain could not be replayed on the other. This provided users with a basic security guarantee that SegWit2x had failed to offer.
Market Dynamics on November 16
On Kraken, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges at the time, trading volume told the story of a market in transition. Total daily volume across all markets reached $262 million. Bitcoin dominated with $127 million in volume, gaining 5.91% to trade at $7,721. But Bitcoin Cash was close behind at $50.9 million in volume.
The broader market saw significant movement across the board. XRP surged 17.6% to $0.2448, Litecoin gained 11.23% to $71.06, and IOTA jumped 7.42% with an extraordinary 49.87% weekly gain according to CoinMarketCap data. Ethereum held relatively steady at $325.40 with a modest 1.29% decline.
According to CoinMarketCap’s historical snapshot for November 16, 2017, Bitcoin’s market capitalization stood at $131.3 billion with a price of $7,871.69. Bitcoin Cash commanded a $15.1 billion market cap at $900.78, making it the third-largest cryptocurrency behind Ethereum’s $31.7 billion.
The Governance Question
Beyond the technical arguments about block sizes and transaction fees, the SegWit2x episode raised profound questions about Bitcoin governance. The top 10 mining pools controlled over 80% of Bitcoin’s hash rate, meaning that protocol decisions made by hash power alone would reflect the interests of a handful of mining operations — not the broader community of users, developers, and businesses.
The New York Agreement was negotiated by a small group of industry leaders, excluding Bitcoin Core developers and much of the broader crypto community. For critics, this symbolized exactly the kind of centralized decision-making that Bitcoin was designed to prevent.
For supporters, however, the inability to reach consensus on even a modest block size increase pointed to a governance failure of a different kind. When a network cannot adapt to growing demand, users will find alternatives — and Bitcoin Cash was ready to absorb them.
Why This Matters
The Bitcoin Cash surge of November 2017 is a case study in how scaling disputes can reshape the cryptocurrency landscape. When Bitcoin’s governance process failed to deliver a scaling solution, the market didn’t wait — it found one. Bitcoin Cash’s rally past $1,000 demonstrated that users and investors will gravitate toward networks that meet their practical needs, regardless of ideological commitments to any particular chain. The episode also highlighted a tension that remains unresolved: between Bitcoin’s principled commitment to decentralization and the practical demands of a growing user base. As long as that tension exists, the door remains open for competitors — whether Bitcoin Cash or others — to capture market share by offering faster, cheaper transactions.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.
$15 per btc transaction in 2017. people forget how bad it actually got before lightning. BCH had a legitimate complaint even if the solution was wrong
I remember paying those $15 fees – BCH looked like a legitimate alternative even if the big block approach was wrong.
I remember paying those $15 fees – BCH looked like a legitimate alternative even if the big block approach was wrong.
$15 BTC tx fees vs $0.07 BCH fees. no wonder people jumped ship. the block size war was never about ideology, it was about not pricing out regular users
block_war_vet exactly. BTC maxis called BCH a scam but the fee chart told the real story. users voted with their wallets
Kraken doing $50.9M in BCH volume in one day was insane. that was real demand from people who couldnt afford to move BTC anymore
$15 btc fees vs $0.07 bch fees. the case for bch was genuinely strong in november 2017. pity the community imploded
segwit2x cancellation leaving btc with no scaling plan is what gave bch its moment. pure narrative driven rally
kraken doing $50.9m in bch volume in one day. that was real demand, not just speculation
Tomas H. 50.9m volume on kraken alone. bch was the 3rd biggest crypto by volume that week behind btc and eth
8mb blocks vs 1mb. the scaling debate was so binary back then. neither side imagined layer 2 would be the answer
nobody imagined L2 because the block size war was ideological, not technical. both sides were too busy being right to look for a third option
both sides were so entrenched that lightning was developed mostly by people who just wanted the fighting to stop. sometimes the best solutions come from exhaustion
The block size war was so ideological that everyone missed the real solution. Lightning came from people tired of fighting.
The block size war was so ideological that everyone missed the real solution. Lightning came from people tired of fighting.
At $1K the network security is finally comparable to early Litecoin days — still nowhere near BTC levels but the trajectory matters. The SegWit2x refugees the article mentions brought real developer talent over. If CashTokens and UTXO-based smart contracts gain traction, BCH could carve out a genuine niche as the low-fee programmable money layer that BTC deliberately chose not to be.
the irony is bch fees are not even that cheap anymore and lightning made the whole big block argument moot