Bitcoin Cash SV (BSV) has been confirmed to suffer a major 51% attack by leading blockchain analytics firms Coin Metrics and SlowMist. The network experienced deep block reorganizations—up to 100 blocks—while three divergent versions of the blockchain ran simultaneously, raising serious concerns about network integrity and long-term viability.
A 51% attack occurs when a single entity or group gains control of more than half of a proof-of-work blockchain’s total hashing power. This dominance allows attackers to manipulate the ledger: reversing transactions, halting confirmations, and executing double-spending attacks. For users, this undermines trust in asset ownership and transaction finality—core principles of decentralized systems. When such attacks succeed, they erode confidence in the cryptocurrency itself, potentially leading to long-term devaluation or abandonment.
The Attack Unfolds: Deep Reorganizations and Network Chaos
Lucas Nuzzi, a researcher at Coin Metrics, was among the first to detect signs of the attack. His team’s risk monitoring platform, FARUM, flagged suspicious activity indicating a successful 51% assault. After an initial failed attempt, attackers succeeded later that evening, triggering a 12-block reorganization and causing multiple chain forks across major mining pools.
"All of our FARUM nodes witnessed a deep reorg with a max depth of 14 blocks.
No further reorganization events have been witnessed, but there are still synchronization conflicts taking place on major mining pools."
— CoinMetrics.io (@coinmetrics)
While only one confirmed attack vector materialized, its impact was extensive. Mining pools struggled to maintain consensus, resulting in over 14 blocks being rewritten—a significant disruption for any blockchain. However, according to Nikita Zhavoronkov, developer at Blockchair, the actual damage may be far greater: BSV reportedly underwent a 100-block deep reorg, affecting nearly 570,000 transactions over a span of 10 hours. Thousands of confirmed transactions were effectively undone, leaving users uncertain about the validity of their transfers.
This level of network instability is exceptionally rare for established blockchains and points to critical vulnerabilities in BSV’s current mining distribution model.
👉 Discover how blockchain networks maintain security and prevent malicious takeovers.
Emergency Response: Bitcoin Association Intervenes via Twitter
In response to the chaos, the Bitcoin Association—a key supporter of BSV—issued an emergency directive via Twitter, urging node operators and miners to manually invalidate the fraudulent chain using a specific command:
bitcoin-cli invalidateblock 000000000000000003B67AEC95E9B5DA897EB5EBF3227D5A6A67835104367840The move aimed to restore consensus by rejecting the attacker’s version of the blockchain. While technically sound, the reliance on a public social media platform for such a critical intervention sparked widespread criticism.
Core Keywords:
- Bitcoin Cash BSV
- 51% attack
- Blockchain reorganization
- Double-spending
- Network security
- Cryptocurrency vulnerability
- Mining centralization
- Transaction reversal
The fact that a foundational decision about chain validity was broadcast on Twitter raised eyebrows across the crypto community. Critics argued it exposed BSV’s dependence on centralized coordination rather than organic, decentralized consensus—a principle fundamental to Bitcoin’s original design.
Community Backlash: “Proof-of-Social-Media” and Loss of Credibility
The Bitcoin Association’s Twitter-based fix did not go unnoticed by the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem—and it was not well received.
Cobra, the operator of Bitcoin.org (recently involved in a legal dispute with Craig Wright over Bitcoin whitepaper rights), seized the moment to mock BSV’s handling of the crisis. In a now-viral tweet, he sarcastically dubbed BSV’s consensus mechanism as "Proof-of-Social-Media" (PoSM):
"The Bitcoin Association is now running the blockchain via Twitter. I guess miners should check tweets regularly to stay in consensus? BSV achieves higher throughput via patented triple-chain technology."
His comment highlighted a growing perception: that BSV’s network security model is fragile and overly reliant on centralized authority figures rather than cryptographic guarantees.
Other community members pointed out a deeper irony—the very command issued to invalidate the malicious chain could now trigger a new race among competing chains, each attempting to apply the fix first and render others obsolete. This creates a paradox where efforts to restore order inadvertently fuel further fragmentation.
👉 Learn how decentralized networks resist manipulation and maintain trustless consensus.
Why BSV Is Vulnerable: Mining Centralization Risks
The root cause of BSV’s susceptibility lies in mining centralization. Unlike Bitcoin (BTC), which boasts a globally distributed mining network with diverse participants, BSV has seen a steady consolidation of hash power among a small number of large mining pools.
When too much computational power is concentrated in few hands, the barrier to launching a 51% attack drops significantly. Attackers can rent hash power or leverage idle capacity from larger ecosystems (like BTC or BCH) during low-usage periods—a practice known as hashrate renting.
BSV’s lower market capitalization and reduced mining incentives compared to other chains make it an attractive target for economically motivated actors looking to exploit weak points in less-secured networks.
This incident underscores a broader truth in blockchain security: decentralization isn’t optional—it’s essential. Without wide distribution of mining power, even chains with robust codebases remain vulnerable to reversal attacks and loss of user trust.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is a 51% attack?
A: A 51% attack happens when a single miner or group controls more than half of a blockchain’s hashing power, enabling them to reverse transactions, prevent new ones from confirming, and double-spend coins.
Q: Can transactions be recovered after a 51% attack?
A: Once reversed, transactions are not automatically restored. Users must rely on exchanges or services to reprocess payments if funds were double-spent. Many platforms wait for deeper confirmations on vulnerable chains to mitigate risk.
Q: Is Bitcoin (BTC) vulnerable to 51% attacks?
A: Theoretically yes, but practically no—due to its massive hash rate and global miner distribution. The cost of acquiring enough computing power would be prohibitively high.
Q: How can blockchains prevent 51% attacks?
A: By promoting mining decentralization, increasing network participation, implementing checkpointing mechanisms, or transitioning to alternative consensus models like proof-of-stake (though each comes with trade-offs).
Q: Was this the first time BSV faced such an attack?
A: No. BSV has experienced multiple 51% attacks since 2019, highlighting recurring issues with network security and miner concentration.
Q: Should I avoid investing in cryptocurrencies prone to 51% attacks?
A: High-risk chains often exhibit frequent reorganizations and low miner participation. Investors should assess network health metrics like hash rate distribution and confirmation depth before exposure.
👉 Explore real-time blockchain analytics to identify network anomalies and potential threats.