On September 1, 2026, a BLAKE2b hard fork pushed by Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr officially activated. However, this new chain—intended to achieve "de-ASICing" by changing the mining algorithm (so that ordinary computers can mine too)—met with widespread cold reception from miners, exchanges, and traders right after launch.
This was not a community split that was controversial yet evenly matched. It was essentially a "declaration of war" with almost no opposition. Bitcoin’s main chain ran smoothly that day without any impact. Blockstream CEO Adam Back summed up the industry’s weight of the event in a single line: "Live by the fork, die by the fork" (Live by the fork, die by the fork).
Source: X/@adam3us
Narrative Conflict and Technical Paradox Behind the Algorithm Shift
At the core of this hard fork is replacing Bitcoin’s SHA-256 mining algorithm on the main network with BLAKE2b. The technical move carried a clear narrative intent: to break the hashrate monopoly dominated by ASIC miners and bring Bitcoin "back" to the original ideal of CPU/GPU mining.
But this "decentralization" narrative collapsed quickly in the face of reality. With BLAKE2b, the purpose-built mining hardware (ASICs) that underpins the value and security of Bitcoin’s main network—worth tens of trillions of dollars—cannot connect to the new chain at all. In effect, the ecosystem actively abandoned the world’s largest hashrate infrastructure. After the fork, on-chain hashrate plunged immediately upon startup and barely formed any effective network security.
What’s even more confusing is the position of the fork initiators. Although the new chain was widely viewed as a failure in both technical and market terms, Dashjr himself still claimed on social media that the BTC code had belonged to his project for more than a decade, and he asserted that Bitcoin had now "migrated" to the BLAKE2b chain. This claim sharply conflicts with on-chain data, miner distribution, and market consensus. Back in August, Ripple’s former Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz had already dismissed such statements as "nonsense."
Market Response and Data Perspective: BTCB2’s Liquidity Vacuum
The market’s response was most direct—voting with feet. As of the time of publication on September 3, major exchanges had not listed the forked asset. Only a single small test platform opened deposits for "BTCB2," but the order book depth on that platform was extremely thin.
Data shows that BTCB2’s highest bid price was only $82, while the lowest ask price was as high as $190. The bid-ask spread reached a staggering 131.7%. This extreme spread clearly indicates that the market has no real liquidity support. The so-called "price" is merely a tentative quote from a handful of participants and has no meaningful reference value.
Compared with the bleak outlook of the new chain, the stability of Bitcoin’s main network received market confirmation again. On September 3, according to Gate Market Data, the Bitcoin (BTC) price was around $77,785, with essentially no impact from the event.
Source: Gate Market Data
New Chain Dilemma: Why No One "Celebrated" This Hard Fork
At a deeper level, the failure of the BLAKE2b fork reveals three structural problems that any new chain attempting to challenge Bitcoin’s established order must face. Together, these issues form a barrier that is hard to overcome:
Lack of hashrate foundations: Bitcoin’s security model is built on the physical computing power of proof of work (PoW). By switching to the BLAKE2b algorithm, the fork intentionally severed ties with the existing massive ASIC miner community. In a network where hashrate is power, a chain without hashrate support is not only highly vulnerable to 51% attacks, but also suffers from unstable block production for new blocks. In August, a chain based on BIP-110 produced only two blocks before stalling. That outcome effectively prefigured the fate of this fork.
Missing ecosystem support: Exchange listing decisions, wallet compatibility, and market makers providing liquidity are the economic lifeblood of a blockchain network. Before launch, the BLAKE2b fork failed to obtain public support from any key infrastructure provider. Without compliant on-ramps, the asset could not enter the mainstream investors’ field of view, leaving it to become a "test token" inside a closed system.
Replay attack risks: Because the forked chain shares the entire transaction history with Bitcoin’s main network from before the fork—and it lacks a complete Replay Protection mechanism—transactions on one chain carry the risk of being maliciously copied and executed on the other chain. As a direct result, exchanges and wallet service providers, out of concern for users’ asset safety, tend to take a conservative stance and refuse to support it. This creates a vicious cycle: infrastructure cannot be built because there is no "chicken," yet there is no "egg" without infrastructure.
Conclusion
The experience of the BLAKE2b hard fork was not an accident or a one-off technical mistake. It was another real-world test of Bitcoin’s social consensus being unshakable. It proves that in a highly mature crypto economy, a code fork can happen easily. But migrating value consensus, hashrate alliances, and ecosystem trust is an almost impossible task. For traders and investors, the key takeaway is: liquidity and hashrate are hard metrics for judging the value of any PoW chain. Without both, technical idealism often falls apart when subjected to market scrutiny.
FAQ
Q: Where can the new coin (BTCB2) be traded after the BLAKE2b fork?
No major exchange has listed it yet. Only a few small test platforms have opened deposits for "BTCB2" using code, but the order book liquidity is extremely poor, the bid-ask spread is huge, and actual trading is nearly impossible to execute effectively.
Q: Does this hard fork affect Bitcoin (BTC) mainnet and price?
Almost no impact. Bitcoin’s mainnet has remained stable before and after the fork, with no network congestion or performance issues. BTC price on September 2 was $76,942, recording only about 1.33% in normal fluctuations. The market did not treat the event as a bearish factor.
Q: Why didn’t this hard fork get support from miners?
Because the new chain changed the mining algorithm from Bitcoin mainnet’s SHA-256 to BLAKE2b, making all Bitcoin ASIC miners—numbering in the millions worldwide—unable to mine on the new chain. Miners would not switch or scrap existing hardware just for a coin with no market value.
Q: What is a replay attack? Why does this fork carry replay attack risk?
A replay attack is when, because the forked chain copies all transaction history from before the mainnet fork, if the transaction signature rules on both chains match, a transaction initiated on the mainnet could be maliciously resubmitted to the forked chain for execution, causing unintended loss of user assets. Since this fork lacked a complete replay protection mechanism, exchanges generally took a wait-and-see approach.
