The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network underwent a pivotal moment on 15 November 2020, when it faced a contentious fork that threatened to split the blockchain into competing chains. For cryptocurrency holders—especially those using hardware wallets like Ledger—this event raised important questions about security, accessibility, and long-term viability. In this comprehensive overview, we’ll break down what the fork meant for users, how service providers responded, and what lessons can be applied to future blockchain upgrades.
Understanding the Bitcoin Cash Fork of November 2020
A blockchain fork occurs when there is a divergence in the network’s protocol, often due to disagreements among developers, miners, and node operators. In the case of Bitcoin Cash, the November 2020 fork stemmed from conflicting development visions between major mining pools and software teams. Unlike routine, consensus-driven upgrades, this split lacked universal agreement—making it a contentious fork.
When consensus isn’t reached, the blockchain can split into two separate versions: one following the old rules and one adhering to the new. This creates two distinct cryptocurrencies moving forward. A similar scenario unfolded in November 2018, when Bitcoin Cash itself split into BCH and BSV (Bitcoin SV)—a precedent that underscored the risks and uncertainties surrounding such events.
👉 Discover how blockchain forks impact your digital assets and what safeguards you can take.
Why the Fork Mattered for Cryptocurrency Users
For everyday users, especially those storing BCH in cold wallets like Ledger devices, the implications were both technical and practical:
- Potential for duplicate coins: After a successful split, users typically own coins on both resulting chains.
- Replay attack risks: Transactions on one chain could be maliciously copied onto the other, leading to unintended losses.
- Service disruptions: Wallet providers often suspend operations temporarily to protect user funds during high-risk periods.
Because of these dangers, many platforms—including Ledger—took precautionary measures well in advance of the fork date.
How Ledger Responded to the BCH Fork
To ensure user safety, Ledger suspended all Bitcoin Cash services starting 12 November 2020 at 07:00 UTC. This proactive step was designed to prevent replay attacks and avoid accidental transactions during network instability.
While services were paused, users’ private keys remained fully secured within their hardware devices. The suspension only affected transaction capabilities through Ledger Live—not the underlying ownership or storage of BCH.
Ledger’s team closely monitored both resulting chains after the fork to evaluate:
- Which chain maintained stronger hash rate and miner support
- Community and exchange adoption levels
- Long-term technical sustainability
Only after determining which chain was economically and technically dominant did Ledger consider reinstating BCH support.
Your Options During a Contentious Fork
When a major cryptocurrency undergoes a divisive upgrade, users must decide how to manage their holdings. Here are three common strategies adopted during the 2020 BCH fork:
Option 1: Transfer Funds Before the Fork
Some users chose to move their BCH to external wallets or exchanges that remained operational during the fork. This allowed continued access to funds but came with notable risks:
- Exposure to replay attacks if proper replay protection wasn’t implemented
- Dependence on third-party platforms with varying security standards
- Potential confusion over which chain’s tokens were being traded
This route required careful research and timing.
Option 2: Wait for Official Support Restoration
Many opted to simply wait out the uncertainty. Since private keys are stored securely on Ledger devices, holding BCH without transacting posed no risk to asset ownership. Once Ledger confirmed which chain was viable, they resumed full service—ensuring users could interact with their funds safely.
This passive approach minimized exposure to scams and technical errors, making it ideal for less experienced users.
Option 3: Use Third-Party Wallets with Ledger Integration
Advanced users leveraged third-party applications compatible with Ledger hardware, such as Electron Cash, to maintain control over their BCH during the suspension period.
These wallets allow signing transactions via the Ledger device while broadcasting them through alternative interfaces. However, users had to verify whether:
- The wallet supported replay protection
- The development team acknowledged the fork
- The interface correctly identified the correct chain post-split
As always, self-custody comes with responsibility—especially during volatile network events.
👉 Learn how secure wallet integrations help protect your crypto during forks and upgrades.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a blockchain fork?
A blockchain fork happens when a cryptocurrency’s protocol changes, leading to a divergence in the ledger. There are two types: soft forks (backward-compatible updates) and hard forks (non-compatible splits that create new chains). The November 2020 Bitcoin Cash event was a hard fork due to irreconcilable differences in development direction.
Did I lose my Bitcoin Cash during the fork?
No. If you held BCH in a Ledger wallet or any self-custody solution, your funds were never at risk of deletion. However, until services resumed or you manually accessed your keys, you couldn’t send or receive transactions. After the split, users generally gained equivalent holdings on both chains—if they took steps to claim them safely.
What is a replay attack?
A replay attack occurs when a valid transaction on one blockchain is fraudulently repeated on another chain created by a fork. Without replay protection, sending 1 BTC on Chain A might result in an identical transfer on Chain B—effectively doubling spending without intent. Wallet providers disable transactions during forks to prevent this.
Could I claim both sides of the fork?
Yes—after a successful hard fork, two separate cryptocurrencies exist. Users who held BCH before the split were entitled to coins on both resulting blockchains. Claiming both required interacting with each chain separately using compatible wallets and ensuring replay protection was active.
Why did Ledger suspend services instead of supporting both chains?
Supporting multiple chains immediately after a contentious fork introduces significant risk. Without clear dominance in mining power, exchange listings, and community backing, it's difficult to determine which chain represents the legitimate continuation of BCH. Ledger prioritized security over convenience, choosing to wait until stability emerged.
Will something like this happen again?
Hard forks are part of decentralized governance. While not every upgrade leads to conflict, disagreements over scalability, fees, or development philosophy can resurface. Staying informed about upcoming network changes—and preparing accordingly—is essential for long-term crypto holders.
Staying Safe During Crypto Network Splits
Contentious forks attract malicious actors looking to exploit confusion. Scammers often launch phishing sites, fake airdrops, or impersonate official support channels during these times.
To stay protected:
- Never share your recovery phrase
- Only use official wallet software and domain names
- Double-check URLs before connecting your device
- Monitor announcements from trusted sources only
👉 Stay ahead of crypto risks with real-time security insights and proactive protection tools.
Final Thoughts
The Bitcoin Cash fork of November 2020 served as a reminder that even established cryptocurrencies face internal challenges. For users, such events highlight the importance of understanding blockchain mechanics, practicing secure key management, and trusting verified platforms during turbulent times.
While Ledger’s temporary suspension limited short-term functionality, it ensured long-term safety—a trade-off that underscores responsible custodianship in the evolving world of digital assets.
Whether you’re navigating forks, upgrades, or new token distributions, informed decisions and cautious action remain your best defense in the decentralized ecosystem.