In recent years, Bitcoin has repeatedly hit new all-time highs, drawing institutional investors from Wall Street and public endorsements from high-profile figures like Elon Musk. Mainstream media and financial institutions now widely recognize Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class, and its network security is rarely questioned.
Yet few realize that just a few years ago, Bitcoin faced its most serious existential threat—the potential takeover by the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) faction. At stake wasn’t just market dominance, but the very name “Bitcoin” itself.
While Bitcoin forks have become common in today’s crypto landscape, back in 2017–2018, the stakes were far higher. This wasn’t just a technical divergence—it was a battle over ideology, control, and the future of decentralized money. And at the heart of it all stood a key player: Bitmain’s rival, the mysterious force behind a secret defense operation—coin supply integrity advocates, often referred to in whispers as "BiXin" or "CoinEx".
Let’s revisit how one group quietly safeguarded Bitcoin during its darkest hour.
Why Did the BCH Faction Hate CoinEx So Much?
To outsiders, Bitcoin forking may seem trivial—any developer can clone a blockchain. But in 2017, the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash was more than code; it was a war of beliefs.
The pro-BCH camp believed bigger blocks meant true scalability and mass adoption. They argued that Bitcoin’s small block size limited transactions and would eventually doom it. But their strategy went beyond debate—they actively sought to replace Bitcoin, not coexist with it.
They launched aggressive marketing campaigns declaring “BCH is the real Bitcoin,” urging holders to swap BTC for BCH. Some fell for it, only to suffer massive losses when BCH failed to deliver.
Even worse, they orchestrated spam attacks on the Bitcoin network, flooding it with tiny “dust” transactions to create artificial congestion—then used that chaos as proof that Bitcoin couldn’t scale.
👉 Discover how early Bitcoin defenders fought back against network manipulation.
This tactic mirrored old-school malware schemes: create a problem, then sell the solution. And just like those rogue antivirus vendors, the BCH movement gained traction by manufacturing fear.
But what truly made them furious? Someone disrupted their master plan—and that someone was CoinEx.
The Bitmain Rivalry: A Clash of Visions
Behind the scenes, tensions weren’t just ideological—they were deeply personal and technological.
One pivotal moment came when Bitmain sued several companies over a mining power supply patent known as "series power supply technology." Among the defendants: Shenzhen MicroBT (maker of WhatsMiner), a power plant operator, and CoinEx’s mining arm.
Why would Bitmain target former allies?
The roots trace back to Vasily, a Russian engineer who once worked at BitFury. Inspired by an entrepreneur named Yuri, Vasily brought his series power design to China, where it caught the attention of early Bitcoin pioneers like Friedcat (Kuangqi). Recognizing its value—allowing miners to bypass expensive power chips—Friedcat bought the tech directly from Vasily and hired him.
Years later, Yang Zuoxing (founder of MicroBT) joined ASICMiner and learned this technique. After Friedcat vanished in 2015, Yang briefly consulted at Bitmain before launching WhatsMiner, taking the series power innovation with him.
CoinEx’s founder, Star Sky (Xing Kong), saw the danger of Bitmain’s monopoly on mining hardware and hash rate. To promote decentralization, he invested heavily in MicroBT—becoming one of its largest backers.
This move threatened Bitmain’s dominance—and their plan to use controlled mining power to push BCH forward.
When BCH launched, Bitmain prioritized selling miners to pro-BCH buyers, sometimes offering 90% off or 5x leverage. This created a loyal base willing to fight for the fork—not out of belief in decentralization, but because their profits depended on it.
👉 Learn how decentralized mining protects blockchain integrity.
How CoinEx Protected Bitcoin During the Fork Crisis
At the core of BCH’s attack strategy was a clever mechanism: Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA).
Here’s how it worked:
- If no block is mined in 12 hours, difficulty drops by 20%.
- It keeps dropping every 12 hours until blocks are found.
- No upward adjustment—only down.
This meant even with minimal hash power, BCH could survive—and potentially thrive.
But here’s the catch: EDA wasn’t defensive. It was offensive.
The idea? After forking, withdraw all hash power from BCH → trigger EDA → difficulty plummets → lure miners away from Bitcoin with higher profitability → crash BTC’s network by draining its hash rate.
With over half the network’s mining power under their influence, BCH leaders thought victory was certain.
But they overlooked one wildcard: CoinEx’s private mining fleet.
When BCH forked in August 2017, everything went according to plan—until mysterious hash power flooded the BCH chain, continuously mining blocks.
No downtime → no difficulty drop → EDA disabled.
The attacker couldn’t execute their “hash rate strike.” Their pump-and-dump scheme stalled. Confused and frustrated, they re-routed their own miners back to BCH just to maintain stability.
Who had both the motive and means? Only CoinEx.
Unlike pools relying on public miners (like F2Pool or BTCC), CoinEx controlled its own hardware. They could act decisively—without asking permission.
For two full weeks, CoinEx mined BCH at a massive loss—up to 100 BTC per day—just to keep difficulty high and protect Bitcoin.
That’s over 1,400 BTC sacrificed in defense of the network.
Why CoinEx Refused to Support BCH
Despite past collaborations—even attending consensus meetings together—CoinEx couldn’t support a project built on deception and centralization.
Key concerns included:
- Centralized control: Most BCH developers and influencers were funded by Bitmain.
- Hostile tactics: Spam attacks, misinformation, and smear campaigns against BTC.
- Existential threat: Not a peaceful fork, but an attempted coup.
While some company-backed tokens succeed (e.g., BNB), none should aim to destroy Bitcoin—the foundational asset of the ecosystem.
Moreover, Satoshi’s vision emphasized decentralization and trustlessness. A chain controlled by a single mining giant contradicted those principles.
As one insider put it:
“You don’t replace democracy with monarchy just because the king promises faster decisions.”
FAQ: Understanding the 2017 Bitcoin Fork Battle
Q: Was Bitcoin Cash technically superior to Bitcoin?
A: While larger blocks allowed more transactions, they also increased node size and centralization risk. Bitcoin chose scalability via Layer 2 (e.g., Lightning Network), which preserved decentralization.
Q: Did CoinEx profit from defending Bitcoin?
A: No—they lost millions in mining revenue. But long-term, preserving Bitcoin’s integrity benefited everyone in the ecosystem, including their own business.
Q: How did Bitmain respond to CoinEx’s interference?
A: They filed a patent lawsuit targeting CoinEx and MicroBT. Though they lost legally, they pressured mining farms to evict CoinEx machines—effectively ending the sabotage campaign.
Q: Could such an attack happen again today?
A: Unlikely. Bitcoin’s hash rate is now vastly larger, and markets are more mature. Plus, lessons from 2017 made miners wary of politically motivated forks.
Q: Is CoinEx still active in mining today?
A: Yes. Though less visible, they remain committed to decentralized mining and continue supporting Bitcoin infrastructure development.
👉 Explore how modern mining ecosystems uphold blockchain security.
Final Thoughts: Guardians of the Network
The full story remained hidden for years. CoinEx never sought praise. They acted not for profit—but for principle.
Today, Bitcoin stands stronger than ever. Its network is more decentralized, its community more resilient. And while many forget the battles fought behind the scenes, history should remember: when Bitcoin needed defenders, a few stood tall.
The fork war proved something vital:
Decentralization isn’t guaranteed—it must be defended.
And sometimes, saving Bitcoin doesn’t require loud proclamations—just silent sacrifice in the shadows of server rooms and mines.
Long Bitcoin. Short the noise.