1984 Bitcoin hard forks - ForkLog: cryptocurrencies, AI, singularity, future

# 1984 Bitcoin Hard Fork

A Grim Scenario of a Decentralized World War

What would happen if leading states suddenly decided to extend large-scale hybrid conflicts into the crypto economy, putting the integrity of the Bitcoin network at risk? Anatoly Kaplan asked himself this question and discovered that it is not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance.

From Private to State-Level

Bitcoin has gone through a long history, evolving from a project of a few enthusiasts into the largest and most secure PoW network in the world. In 2010, its hashrate surpassed 1 GH/s and continued to grow steadily. Now, this figure is around 1 ZH/s, which is approximately 20–25 GWh of daily energy consumption, costing $800–1000 million.

One of the most difficult periods in Bitcoin’s history was 2017. The debate over block size did not lead to consensus, resulting in a network hard fork. This led first to the emergence of Bitcoin Cash, and then several other forks of the original cryptocurrency. However, by 2025, only Bitcoin Cash survived, backed by Roger Ver.

For a long time, the entrepreneur was in disfavor, but this year he managed to make a profitable deal with US authorities. Ver’s figure is shrouded in an extravagant aura. Early on, he proclaimed himself the “Bitcoin Jesus,” monetized the Bitcoin.com domain name not without controversy, and by 2017, his personal authority allowed him to carry out a successful hard fork and create a private version of digital gold.

Now, at the end of 2025, the question does not seem so fantastic: if a single individual managed to pull off such a scenario, why couldn’t entire states do the same, not just corporations? Here, the imagination can conjure up the darkest pictures.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the universal excitement about the millennium was shattered by a series of disappointments and tragedies. Bloody conflicts in the Balkans simmered down, and their place in the global media was taken by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As it turned out, this was only the beginning.

By 2010, the planet was swept by a series of truly large-scale confrontations. Judging by the situation and the rhetoric of global leaders, this process could soon evolve into a kind of “decentralized world war.”

It will inevitably affect cryptocurrencies — and above all, Bitcoin. It’s not about the price of the first cryptocurrency or tightening controls and various restrictions, but about a series of new splits of digital gold through hard forks. States that are actively increasing their Bitcoin reserves with new coins today could be involved in these.

At the moment, the distribution of the first cryptocurrency’s hashrate by country is as follows:

Distribution of Bitcoin hashrate by country in Q4 2025. Source: Hashrate Index. The distribution of coins is even more interesting. The data below reflects approximate information about the number of bitcoins under the control of individual countries:

Source: CoinPedia. There are also so-called Satoshi bitcoins or simply coins of early network participants, whose ownership is not established, and access to some of them is presumably lost. Their total number, according to various estimates, is:

1. From 500,000 to 1.5 million BTC — “Satoshi’s coins.”
2. From 2 million to 4 million BTC — “lost” coins.

But why would warring states want to fork Bitcoin at all? It’s a way to reduce the value of the enemy’s coins, as network splits inevitably lead to liquidity redistribution between new chains.

It is also a way to significantly restrict the enemy’s possible financial operations in their economic zone. Suppose all bitcoins after the hard fork belong to its initiator. Accordingly, the adversary is left with no resources in the alternative network and can no longer use the infrastructure they previously relied on. Since the initiative comes from the state, all major exchanges and exchangers in its sphere of influence will not support the enemy chain.

A hard fork would most likely be preceded by transaction censorship in specific economic zones. This can be done through miner control, as well as KYC/AML tools. The latter will simply exclude the reception and processing of funds from certain addresses. Miners will ignore their transactions, exchanges will block funds, and so on. These are, by and large, just more sanctions. But they are unlikely to be enough to inflict significant damage on the enemy.

A much more profitable scenario is a hard fork. It will not only rob the enemy but also cause panic in the market and society.

Bitcoin was not the first protocol to face the consequences of a hard fork. Another vivid example was the Ethereum split into two chains after The DAO collapse in 2015 and the emergence of Ethereum Classic. Today, ETH has successfully transitioned to PoS, while its alternative version still runs on PoW for ideological reasons. This set a precedent that legitimized all future hard forks.

In the event of an escalating “decentralized world war,” a new Bitcoin hard fork is inevitable. This will also trigger similar processes in many other PoW and PoS networks.

How to protect yourself or mitigate risks? It is difficult to predict all the challenges that users will face if such events unfold. The key risks will most likely be associated with centralized platforms. First, market participants will need time to deal with the consequences and integrate one chain or another. Second, many major players (primarily exchanges) will face pressure from several states at once.

How Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia Divided Bitcoin

Let’s model how a Bitcoin hard fork would happen in the universe of George Orwell’s “1984,” where most of the world is divided among three superpowers: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia.

In this reality, there are four versions of Bitcoin:

• Bitcoin Ocean;
• Bitcoin Eurasia;
• Bitcoin OST;
• Bitcoin Core — the original network version, whose participants did not accept any of the superpowers’ hard forks and support a neutral network operating on the original principles of the first cryptocurrency.

How did it all begin? One fine day, the president of Oceania declared war on Eurasia. In response, Eurasia, together with Eastasia, announced a Bitcoin hard fork. Thanks to their control over a significant number of miners, Oceania’s adversaries quickly carried out a hard fork called Bitcoin Global. They managed to attract about 70% of the hashrate and a significant part of the liquidity.

In addition to separating from the network segment connected to Oceania, the chain split included moving all coins that had been inactive for over 10 years to addresses controlled by the Bitcoin Global Foundation (BGF).

Meanwhile, Oceania was forced to initiate its own hard fork and introduce direct control over all mining companies and exchanges in its territory. The superpower lost more than 70% of its bitcoin reserves due to the network split and market panic.

While Oceania was left to deal with these new problems, something went wrong in Bitcoin Global. Several BGF officials stole all the coins obtained by confiscating early bitcoins and disappeared without a trace. In the process, they sold at least half of the stolen assets, crashing the price.

The authorities of both countries began to blame each other for what happened, and these events led to a rift between the allies. Eastasia launched its own hard fork and called the new network Bitcoin OST. Shortly after, Eurasia demanded that Eastasia transfer all the stolen coins to its control. Instead of answering, Eastasia’s leadership declared war on Eurasia.

While all this madness was unfolding, a small group of enthusiasts continued to maintain the original Bitcoin Core. Thanks to their quick action and several security updates, they managed to preserve about 10% of the network’s computing power and liquidity.

Each of the new bitcoins, except Bitcoin Core, also received a number of additional properties. In some cases, this meant state control over transaction reversibility, in others, the creation of accounts only after full identification and disclosure of identity. Little of the original bitcoin remained in these networks. However, the original Bitcoin Core still survived and continued to exist.

With that, let’s leave Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia alone with their many bitcoins and return to 2025.

Tensions in the world are rising every day, claiming thousands of lives. If this process continues, it will also lead to the splitting of bitcoin. Today, the total capitalization of the digital currency market is not that large compared to, say, the global GDP. However, cryptocurrencies have long proven their instrumental usefulness not only to supporters of decentralization and free money but also to participants in the international political process.

Most likely, a new split of bitcoin will become the basis for the financial stratification of society. In such a reality, loyalty to a particular network will determine not only the geography and political views of its participants but also their entire socio-economic reality. Which bitcoin will you choose?