Spoon vs. Fork: Nuances of Blockchain Divergence

Published on: 05.04.2024
Spoon vs. Fork: Nuances of Blockchain Divergence

Blockchain revolutionized finance and tech, but its future relies on understanding its inner workings. This deep dive explores “spoons vs forks” – a key concept in blockchain divergence. We’ll break down what they are, why they matter, real-world examples, and how they might shape the future of blockchain. 

Definition and Purpose of Spoon and Fork in Blockchain Networks

Spoons and forks are terms used in the blockchain world to describe two different types of blockchain divergence. A fork is a permanent divergence where the blockchain splits into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules and transaction history. A spoon, on the other hand, is a temporary divergence where the blockchain splits into two chains, but eventually merges back into one.


The purpose of both spoons and forks is to address issues or add new features to the blockchain network. Forks are typically used when there is a disagreement within the community about the direction of the network, or when there is a need to address a critical issue. Spoons, on the other hand, are used when developers want to experiment with new features or improvements without affecting the main blockchain.


PurposeAdd capabilities, complement technical skillsSplit market share, create new network
TokenDuplicates balances, uses private tokenUses same token as existing chain
Blockchain NetworkCompatible with existing protocol, offers improvementsCreates new network with different transaction history
Type of ChangeSignificant change, creates new networkModifies existing blockchain network
Resulting CryptocurrencyNew cryptocurrency with account balances from existing oneNew cryptocurrency with same token as existing one
Market ShareCan complement existing platformCan split and change market share
Use CasesAdding new features, improvementsCreating new network, protocol
ExampleEthereum, CosmosBitcoin Cash, Ethereum Classic

The choice between creating a cryptocurrency from scratch or forking an existing one depends on the project’s goals, resources, and market needs. Building from scratch offers complete freedom and flexibility but can be initially difficult to build a user base. Forking an existing blockchain network can deliver a new cryptocurrency more quickly using the existing user base, but the success of the existing project and community support is important.

Historical Examples of Spoons and Forks in Blockchain

The history of blockchain is dotted with both successful and failed attempts at forks and spoons. Here are some notable examples:


  • Ethereum Classic (ETC) vs. Ethereum (ETH): This is a classic example of a contentious hard fork. In 2016, a hack on the DAO project on the Ethereum blockchain resulted in a disagreement over how to handle the stolen funds. A hard fork was implemented, creating Ethereum Classic (ETC) which remained true to the original protocol and Ethereum (ETH) which adopted a rollback to undo the hack.
  • Bitcoin Cash (BCH) vs. Bitcoin (BTC): In 2017, a major debate arose within the Bitcoin community regarding scalability limitations. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) emerged as a hard fork of Bitcoin (BTC), increasing the block size to allow for faster transaction processing. Both chains continue to exist, though BTC remains the dominant one.


  • Athereum (ATH): Launched in 2016, Athereum is a prime example of a spoon project. It took a snapshot of the Ethereum blockchain at a specific point, capturing user balances and distributing its own token (ATH) based on those balances. Athereum aimed to improve upon Ethereum’s scalability issues, but ultimately didn’t achieve mainstream adoption. However, it highlights the potential of spoons for fostering innovation within existing blockchain ecosystems.
  • Sovrin (Sov): Sovrin utilizes a spoon approach by leveraging the Hyperledger Indy blockchain. It creates a separate, permissioned blockchain focused on decentralized identity management. Sovrin utilizes its own token (Sov) to incentivize participation within its ecosystem, demonstrating how spoons can enable specialized functionalities on top of established blockchains.

Understanding the historical context and motivations behind these forks helps shed light on the evolving nature of blockchain technology and the different approaches developers take to address challenges and create innovative solutions.


Impact of Spoons and Forks on Cryptocurrency Value

The impact of spoons and forks on cryptocurrency value is a multifaceted phenomenon that often elicits a mixed response from the market. Initially, the announcement of a spoon or fork can generate significant excitement among investors, leading to a surge in the price of the associated cryptocurrency. This uptick in value is driven by anticipation of potential benefits from the proposed protocol changes or new features introduced by the fork. Investors may perceive these developments as positive signs of innovation and improvement within the ecosystem, prompting them to accumulate the cryptocurrency in anticipation of future gains.

However, the long-term impact on cryptocurrency value following a spoon or fork is less predictable and can vary depending on various factors such as community adoption, developer support, and market sentiment. While some forks may successfully establish themselves as viable alternatives to the original chain, others may struggle to gain traction and gradually lose value over time. Additionally, the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of a fork and the potential for a split in the community can contribute to increased volatility in the market, as investors weigh the risks and rewards of holding or divesting their holdings. Overall, while spoons and forks can initially influence cryptocurrency value, their lasting impact ultimately hinges on broader market dynamics and the ability of the respective projects to deliver on their promises.

Security Implications of Spoons vs. Forks

Spoons and forks also have different security implications. Forks, being permanent divergences, can lead to the creation of two separate blockchains, each with its own set of rules and transaction history. This can create security concerns if one of the chains is vulnerable to attacks or exploits.

On the other hand, spoons are temporary divergences and eventually merge back into the main blockchain. This means that any security issues or vulnerabilities are addressed before the merge, reducing the risk of long-term security implications.

The Future of Spoons and Forks in Blockchain Evolution

As blockchain technology continues to evolve, the use of spoons and forks is expected to become more common. Developers will likely use these tools to address issues, add new features, and experiment with new ideas. However, the success of these divergences will depend on the level of community support and the overall market conditions.

In conclusion, understanding the nuances of spoons and forks in blockchain networks is crucial for anyone interested in the technology. These divergences play a significant role in the evolution of blockchain and can have a significant impact on the value of associated cryptocurrencies. As the technology continues to grow, the use of spoons and forks is expected to become more common, and their impact on the blockchain landscape will be significant.

Market Stats:
BTC Dominance: 53.95%(-0.13%/24h)
ETH Dominance: 18.26%(-0.02%/24h)
Defi Market Cap: $88.72B(-26.10%/24h)
Total Market Cap: $2351.63B(+0.29%/24h)
Total Trading Volume 24h: $34.05B(-47.52%/24h)
ETH Market Cap: $429.7B
Defi to ETH Ratio: 20.65%
Defi Dominance: 3.58%
Altcoin Market Cap: $1082.85B
Altcoin Volume 24h: $24.59B
Total Cryptocurrencies: 30351
Active Cryptocurrencies: 10113
Active Market Pairs: 82798
Active Exchanges: 782
Total Exchanges: 8740
BTC: 64356.37$(-0.09%/1H)
ETH: 3512.48$(-0.12%/1H)
AVAX: 25.83$(-0.48%/1H)
BNB: 591.72$(-0.12%/1H)
MATIC: 0.58$(-0.02%/1H)
FTM: 0.59$(0.63%/1H)
ADA: 0.39$(-0.01%/1H)
DOT: 5.77$(0.01%/1H)
UNI: 10$(0.53%/1H)
CAKE: 2.26$(-0.23%/1H)
SUSHI: 0.81$(-0.17%/1H)
ONE: 0.02$(-0.25%/1H)