As October 2017 progressed, the Bitcoin mining ecosystem found itself at a crossroads. With BTC hovering around $4,831 and the network hashrate climbing steadily, miners were bracing for not one but multiple chain splits. The most immediate was Bitcoin Gold (BTG), a proposed hard fork led by Jack Liao that aimed to upend the mining establishment by replacing Bitcoin’s SHA-256 algorithm with Equihash — an ASIC-resistant proof-of-work algorithm designed to level the playing field for everyday miners using consumer graphics cards.
TL;DR
- Bitcoin Gold hard fork was being prepared for snapshot at block 491,407 (approximately October 24, 2017)
- BTG aimed to replace SHA-256 with Equihash to make mining ASIC-resistant
- Bitcoin Cash hashrate briefly exceeded BTC’s around mid-October 2017
- BTC traded at approximately $4,831, BCH at $312 on October 11
- Multiple forks on the horizon created uncertainty in mining economics
- SegWit activation in August 2017 had already shifted network dynamics
The Bitcoin Gold Vision
Jack Liao, the head of the Bitcoin Gold project, outlined his aspirations in interviews with Chinese crypto media outlet 8BTC during October 2017. The core thesis was simple but controversial: Bitcoin mining had become too centralized. Industrial-scale mining operations running custom ASIC hardware manufactured predominantly by Bitmain had effectively priced out individual miners, concentrating hashpower in the hands of a few large players and the pools they operated.
Bitcoin Gold proposed to change that by adopting Equihash, the same algorithm used by Zcash. Because Equihash was memory-intensive rather than computation-intensive, it was far more amenable to GPU mining. The vision was a return to Bitcoin’s original ethos — one CPU, one vote — where anyone with a gaming PC could participate in securing the network and earn mining rewards without needing specialized hardware costing thousands of dollars.
The fork was scheduled to occur at block height 491,407, which was projected to be reached around October 24, 2017. Any holder of BTC at the time of the snapshot would receive an equivalent amount of BTG at a 1:1 ratio, mirroring the distribution model that had been used for Bitcoin Cash in August.
Hashrate Wars: Bitcoin Cash Briefly Overtakes BTC
One of the most remarkable phenomena of mid-October 2017 was the dramatic fluctuation in mining power between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. According to research by Binance, there was a period around mid-October when the hashrate of Bitcoin Cash actually exceeded that of the original Bitcoin chain. This was possible because both networks shared the same SHA-256 mining algorithm, meaning miners could point their hardware at either chain depending on which was more profitable to mine at any given moment.
The profitability calculus was straightforward: miners would mine whichever chain offered the best return after accounting for block rewards, transaction fees, and the market price of the coin. When BCH’s price spiked relative to its difficulty, it became temporarily more profitable than BTC, triggering a flood of hashrate to the Bitcoin Cash network. This created visible effects on the Bitcoin blockchain, where block times temporarily increased as hashrate departed.
On October 11, Bitcoin Cash was trading at approximately $312, according to Kraken’s daily report, down 1.39% on the day. Despite the lower price compared to BTC at $4,831, the profitability dynamics were influenced by BCH’s difficulty adjustment algorithm, which had been modified from Bitcoin’s original design to adjust more rapidly to hashrate changes.
The SegWit Aftermath and Network Dynamics
The mining landscape of October 2017 was still absorbing the effects of Segregated Witness (SegWit), which had activated on the Bitcoin network in late August 2017. SegWit’s activation resolved a years-long scaling debate but did not satisfy everyone. The community had split into multiple camps: those who supported SegWit and the planned SegWit2x hard fork, those who had created Bitcoin Cash in opposition, and now those pushing for Bitcoin Gold.
The activation of SegWit introduced a new transaction format that effectively increased block capacity and laid the groundwork for Layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network. However, adoption was still in its early stages in October 2017, with only a small percentage of transactions using the new format. For miners, the key concern was how these protocol changes would affect fee revenue and the long-term economics of mining.
Mining Economics in a Multi-Fork World
The proliferation of Bitcoin forks created a strange new economic reality for miners. Each fork that occurred effectively created a new SHA-256 chain competing for the same mining hardware. Miners now had to consider not just the immediate profitability of mining BTC versus BCH, but also the potential future value of any new coins created by upcoming forks like Bitcoin Gold and SegWit2x.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment algorithm was designed for a more stable hashrate environment. Large swings in hashpower between chains could lead to extended periods of slow block times on one chain followed by rapid difficulty adjustments, creating a volatile experience for users and miners alike.
Why This Matters
The events of October 2017 laid bare the fundamental tension at the heart of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work system: the same decentralization that made the network resilient also made it vulnerable to governance conflicts played out through mining power. The Bitcoin Gold experiment, while ultimately modest in its impact, raised questions about mining centralization that remain relevant today. The hashrate wars between BTC and BCH demonstrated that mining is a market-driven activity where profit motives can override ideological commitments. As the cryptocurrency ecosystem has matured, these lessons have informed the design of newer consensus mechanisms and mining algorithms, but the core insight endures: in proof-of-work systems, economic incentives and technical parameters are inseparable.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk.
equihash to stop ASICs lasted about 6 months before miners figured it out. every ASIC resistant algorithm eventually isnt
BCH hashrate briefly beating BTC was the real headline here. people forget how close that came to flipping mining economics
Halima N. BCH hashrate beating BTC even briefly was the real story. jack liao doing a premine while complaining about mining centralization was peak 2017 irony
btc_parliament six months is generous. FPGAs showed up faster than that for equihash
btc_parliament equihash lasted longer than scrypt but the cgminer GPUs got replaced by FPGAs within a year. ASIC resistance is a myth that keeps selling forks
Borys K. equihash holding longer than scrypt is technically true but FPGAs cracked it within a year. the only real ASIC resistance is something that changes algorithms dynamically
equihash held up longer than scrypt at least. but yeah, ASIC resistance is always temporary until the hardware catches up
jack liao promising decentralized mining while premining a bunch for the team. classic 2017 fork playbook
the premine was like 100k BTG. decentralized mining for thee not for me lol
multiple forks in one month and we thought that was normal. 2017 was unhinged
fork_the_sec four forks in six weeks and we acted like it was normal. 2017 broke everyones brain
BCH hashrate flipping BTC even for a few hours shouldve been the headline instead of BTG. jack liao was a sideshow
ASIC resistance was always a fantasy. Equihash held for what, 8 months before Bitmain shipped a miner for it? same story with Ethash eventually
BTG got 51% attacked anyway lmao. the whole point was decentralization and it ended up being easier to attack than BTC
jack liao premining BTG while claiming to fight mining centralization is the most crypto thing ever. the devs kept 5% as a developer donation tax lmao
Anca V. the 5% developer tax on top of a premine while claiming to fight centralization is peak 2017 doublespeak. jack liao invented a new category of grift
i was mining BTG with two 1080tis back then. felt like sticking it to the man. sold at a loss 3 months later lol
BTG ended up being just another forkcoin that nobody uses. the whole ASIC resistance pitch was marketing to get GPU miners to support the chain
forkburner_ BTG ended up as another forkcoin nobody uses. ASIC resistance was the pitch deck and GPU miners fell for it
BCH hashrate exceeding BTC even briefly should have been a bigger warning sign. miners follow profit not ideology
ASIC resistance lasting 6 months before FPGAs cracked equihash. jack liao sold a dream and GPU miners bought it literally
btg_bagholder_ equihash held longer than scrypt but the FPGA crowd cracked it within a year. every ASIC resistant claim has an expiration date
fork_archivist_ equihash lasted 8 months on consumer GPUs before bitmain shipped an ASIC anyway. ASIC resistance is a marketing term not a technical reality
BCH hashrate briefly beating BTC in october 2017 was wild. everyone was so focused on the BTG fork they missed the actual mining economics flipping
BCH hashrate briefly exceeding BTC was the actual story. miners chasing profit not ideology told you everything about how forks would play out
Anya Petrova BCH flipping BTC hashrate for a few hours was the scariest moment of 2017. people forget how close that chain split came to splitting mining power permanently