We're forking Bitcoin.

We are a group of Bitcoin users forking Bitcoin back to its original vision of scaling on-chain to the world; with or without miner majority.

"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit" – S. Nakamoto


We believe that Bitcoin will scale on chain, and should be governed through a series of hard forks. We believe this is the original vision of Bitcoin; to allow any interested user access to a network of peer to peer cash, with a low barrier to entry.

Our mission is simple: to advance Bitcoin scaling while making a powerful statement on governance by executing a successful hard fork off the Bitcoin network.

"if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit"
S. Nakamoto, Oct. 4 2010

"Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
S. Nakamoto, Bitcoin whitepaper conclusion

"Nodes only take so many KB of free transactions per block before they start requiring at least 0.01 transaction fee.... I don't think the threshold should ever be 0. We should always allow at least some free transactions."
S. Nakamoto, Sep. 7 2010

(These quotes are not provided as an appeal to authority, but as a reminder of the original project vision)

Join us in exploring forks as the ultimate means of consensus and governance, tackling the pressing and urgent issues in the Bitcoin ecosystem, and opening discussion and experimentation towards controversial changes to the Bitcoin community for the first time.

The Bitcoin experiment has not failed; it's just getting started.


The first month of the project will be dedicated to finalizing a roadmap for fork experimentation, allowing the community and market to make an informed decision on their Bitcoin client of choice.

Our tentative roadmap overview is as follows (due to the early stage of this project, this roadmap is not final and subject to change):

Months 1-3 : Community development, establishment of necessary channels, build, and testing infrastructure, and community release of several proposed forks (including multiple client bases and PoW implementations). Our goal is to create a collaborative environment in which forks can be proposed, tested, evaluated, and deployed by the community and marketplace. We will research key challenges, like PoW changes, difficulty adjustment, script limits, and effects of blocksize cap through tests on our public test network.

Months 3-6 : Client release of final binaries, and establishment of exchange relationships necessary to begin trading of dominant fork. Deployment of required network infrastructures, including an initial node and mining network. We will focus on getting a fork ready for widespread use, getting a working product to the marketplace.

Months 6- : Support of the initial and any further forks through the creation of community resources for comparison, discussion, and decision making. We will faciliatate the overall Bitcoin governance process by encouraging sane forks, regardless of whether or not they are contentious. We will aim to provide the market with all resources and information necessary to make informed decisions.


Have any other questions about our project? Ask on our subreddit .

Is this just another [altcoin / pump and dump]? No! First of all this is not an altcoin; it is a Bitcoin implementation that forks from the main chain, preserving the same UTXO set, genesis block, and blockchain up to a certain height. While some may redefine the word "altcoin" to include any forks of the main chain outside the de facto reference implementation, we do not agree with this disingenuous use of the term.

Who is behind this project? We are a group of Bitcoin developers, users, and supporters who are frustrated by the lack of scaling and governance solutions proposed by the status quo. While many of us choose to remain anonymous and pseudonymous for fear of attack in what remains a politically loaded space, we will strive to make as much information on the development of our fork public as possible. We welcome any with time or skills to spare to join the project using the links below.

Why now? After years of stalling on the scaling issue (with solutions demanded as early as 2012), we believe the time has come to abandon ultraconservatism and move towards progress and open experimentation. With many popular Bitcoin businesses expressing concerns or pivoting out of the space, we see an existential crisis looming for Bitcoin if scaling is not improved soon. The active engagement of the community in forks as a freedom-preserving upgrade mechanism is long overdue.

What client are we using for the fork? We have not chosen a specific client for the fork. Rather, we aim to encourage all developers to propose forking clients, and wish to provide an infrastructure through which these forks can all be tested and evaluated. We support any and all technically significant forks of the current blockchain, and believe all should be discussed and submitted to consideration to the wider community.

But can't a fork cause loss of funds? No, a properly implemented and deployed fork will not cause a loss of funds in the absence of severe negligence. Because the new fork inherently has a different value than the old chain, and requires proactive upgrade actions from users and nodes, these users have an opportunity to take appropriate security protections in anticipation of the fork. Old clients will simply continue operating on the old chain, with clients intending to trade goods for fiat simply operating with the exchange value of the old chain. Several cryptocurrencies have already demonstrated successful forks with no fund loss, and we believe the fear of such forks in the Bitcoin community is unsupported by the current empirical evidence.

Why not a soft fork? We believe deploying critical protocol changes through soft forks is an inherently bloated process that is coercive to far more people than an equivalent hard fork. Soft forks activate exclusively on miner vote, disenfranchising nodes that do not hold hashpower and excluding them from the decision process. Furthermore, many soft forks decrease the security of old nodes by removing their ability to meaningfully validate an ever-increasing percentage of transactions in blocks. Lastly, soft forks are coercive to dissident miners, who are forced to either upgrade to the fork or accept the potential orphaning of all blocks they mine. On the other hand, a hard fork allows all users of the system to explicitly choose the consensus rules and blockchain with which they transact. Hard forks also mitigate the damage possible through development capture by allowing users a choice to change to a chain with values, developers, and code of their choosing. Ultimately, hard forks are an essential upgrade mechanism, and critical to the antifragility of all cryptocurrency.

But a hard fork is hard? A hard fork is hard but necessary. After the first fork is executed, we expect the ecosystem of tools surrounding the management of forks to become increasingly robust, supporting future forks in a far more seamless and low-effort fashion.


Calling all devs and non-devs alike: Help us bring Bitcoin to the world.

Start the conversation on reddit at r/btcfork

Vote on BTC Fork Constitution and features at btcfork.consider.it

Contribute code or testing at github.com/BTCfork

Join us on Telegram at @BTCFork

Follow us on Twitter at @btcfork

Help to translate this site at www.transifex.com

Join our development Slack here