Would it be possible to create a soft-fork for reducing miner reward?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












Context:



There is a bet going on r/bitcoin about the possibility of doing a user activated soft fork for reducing current miner reward to 0.25 BTC.



One of the users says the bet had two points:




  1. the change must be a soft fork (aka it doesn't break consensus)

  2. no miner must be able to claim more than 0.25 btc.


Would it be able to make a change to the Bitcoin consensus rules that would meet this criteria?










share|improve this question







New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
    – Nate Eldredge
    2 days ago















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












Context:



There is a bet going on r/bitcoin about the possibility of doing a user activated soft fork for reducing current miner reward to 0.25 BTC.



One of the users says the bet had two points:




  1. the change must be a soft fork (aka it doesn't break consensus)

  2. no miner must be able to claim more than 0.25 btc.


Would it be able to make a change to the Bitcoin consensus rules that would meet this criteria?










share|improve this question







New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
    – Nate Eldredge
    2 days ago













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











Context:



There is a bet going on r/bitcoin about the possibility of doing a user activated soft fork for reducing current miner reward to 0.25 BTC.



One of the users says the bet had two points:




  1. the change must be a soft fork (aka it doesn't break consensus)

  2. no miner must be able to claim more than 0.25 btc.


Would it be able to make a change to the Bitcoin consensus rules that would meet this criteria?










share|improve this question







New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Context:



There is a bet going on r/bitcoin about the possibility of doing a user activated soft fork for reducing current miner reward to 0.25 BTC.



One of the users says the bet had two points:




  1. the change must be a soft fork (aka it doesn't break consensus)

  2. no miner must be able to claim more than 0.25 btc.


Would it be able to make a change to the Bitcoin consensus rules that would meet this criteria?







blockchain-fork mining-reward soft-fork






share|improve this question







New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









My Quid Pro Quo

232




232




New contributor




My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
    – Nate Eldredge
    2 days ago


















  • Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
    – Nate Eldredge
    2 days ago
















Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
– Nate Eldredge
2 days ago




Maybe I'm not sure what "soft fork" means exactly in this context. But what about a scheme where > 50% of miners agree that they will not mine on top of any block with a reward larger than 0.25 BTC? Non-mining nodes don't have to upgrade; they might accept blocks with higher rewards from non-conforming miners, but those blocks will eventually be orphaned. And because of the 100-block maturation time, no transaction that spends a higher reward will ever be valid.
– Nate Eldredge
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Yes, it is possible. The rule regarding the coinbase reward is that a miner cannot take more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees in the block. This means that a miner can opt to take less than the full reward that they are entitled to. This has happened before in Bitcoin a few times. The coins that they did not collect are gone forever.



So, you can use this rule to your advantage if you want to decrease the block subsidy via a soft fork. In your soft fork, you simply create a new rule which results in the coinbase reward being less than the current coinbase reward (e.g. the block subsidy is smaller). Because of the rule mentioned earlier, non-upgraded nodes will still accept blocks that have these coinbase transactions with a smaller coinbase reward. Thus this is a soft fork because the new rule is backwards compatible.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The way block reward is computed today is :



    CAmount blockReward = nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus());


    Which means that the block reward is the total fees in the block plus the current base block subsidy.



    It's definitely possible to change this line to (pseudocode) :



    CAmount blockReward = std::min(nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus()), 25000000);


    This will be a soft fork which doesn't allow the reward to be larger than 0.25 BTC



    To explain what I mean in English, the reward is set minimum taken between the current block subsidy + fees, or 0.25 BTC. This is a constraint on the current rules (where the base subsidy is larger than 0.25 BTC), and forward compatible with the period in the future when the base subsidy is lower than 0.25 BTC.



    Adding @pieter-wuille's point from the comment, the current rules don't limit a miner in how low they can set their reward to be (where the minimum is zero), only how high. That means that a miner doesn't have to reward themselves with the maximum allowed reward. Such occurences have happened on chain before :



    Rootstock accidentally set a zero amount as their reward :
    https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/9bf8853b3a823bbfa1e54017ae11a9e1f4d08a854dcce9f24e08114f2c921182



    The first satoshi taken out of money supply :



    https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d






    share|improve this answer























    • How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
      – James C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
      – arubi
      2 days ago










    • Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
      – James C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
      – Pieter Wuille
      2 days ago










    • Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
      – James C.
      2 days ago


















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Changing the block subsidy amount and/or schedule is not possible without breaking consensus.



    It can be possible to limit tx’s included in a block to limit the fees received by the miner with a soft fork. Empty blocks can still be valid.






    share|improve this answer





















    • It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
      – My Quid Pro Quo
      2 days ago










    • Yup my mistake. I understand now.
      – James C.
      2 days ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "308"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81772%2fwould-it-be-possible-to-create-a-soft-fork-for-reducing-miner-reward%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Yes, it is possible. The rule regarding the coinbase reward is that a miner cannot take more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees in the block. This means that a miner can opt to take less than the full reward that they are entitled to. This has happened before in Bitcoin a few times. The coins that they did not collect are gone forever.



    So, you can use this rule to your advantage if you want to decrease the block subsidy via a soft fork. In your soft fork, you simply create a new rule which results in the coinbase reward being less than the current coinbase reward (e.g. the block subsidy is smaller). Because of the rule mentioned earlier, non-upgraded nodes will still accept blocks that have these coinbase transactions with a smaller coinbase reward. Thus this is a soft fork because the new rule is backwards compatible.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      Yes, it is possible. The rule regarding the coinbase reward is that a miner cannot take more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees in the block. This means that a miner can opt to take less than the full reward that they are entitled to. This has happened before in Bitcoin a few times. The coins that they did not collect are gone forever.



      So, you can use this rule to your advantage if you want to decrease the block subsidy via a soft fork. In your soft fork, you simply create a new rule which results in the coinbase reward being less than the current coinbase reward (e.g. the block subsidy is smaller). Because of the rule mentioned earlier, non-upgraded nodes will still accept blocks that have these coinbase transactions with a smaller coinbase reward. Thus this is a soft fork because the new rule is backwards compatible.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        3
        down vote



        accepted






        Yes, it is possible. The rule regarding the coinbase reward is that a miner cannot take more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees in the block. This means that a miner can opt to take less than the full reward that they are entitled to. This has happened before in Bitcoin a few times. The coins that they did not collect are gone forever.



        So, you can use this rule to your advantage if you want to decrease the block subsidy via a soft fork. In your soft fork, you simply create a new rule which results in the coinbase reward being less than the current coinbase reward (e.g. the block subsidy is smaller). Because of the rule mentioned earlier, non-upgraded nodes will still accept blocks that have these coinbase transactions with a smaller coinbase reward. Thus this is a soft fork because the new rule is backwards compatible.






        share|improve this answer












        Yes, it is possible. The rule regarding the coinbase reward is that a miner cannot take more than the block subsidy plus the transaction fees in the block. This means that a miner can opt to take less than the full reward that they are entitled to. This has happened before in Bitcoin a few times. The coins that they did not collect are gone forever.



        So, you can use this rule to your advantage if you want to decrease the block subsidy via a soft fork. In your soft fork, you simply create a new rule which results in the coinbase reward being less than the current coinbase reward (e.g. the block subsidy is smaller). Because of the rule mentioned earlier, non-upgraded nodes will still accept blocks that have these coinbase transactions with a smaller coinbase reward. Thus this is a soft fork because the new rule is backwards compatible.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Andrew Chow

        30.1k42161




        30.1k42161






















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The way block reward is computed today is :



            CAmount blockReward = nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus());


            Which means that the block reward is the total fees in the block plus the current base block subsidy.



            It's definitely possible to change this line to (pseudocode) :



            CAmount blockReward = std::min(nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus()), 25000000);


            This will be a soft fork which doesn't allow the reward to be larger than 0.25 BTC



            To explain what I mean in English, the reward is set minimum taken between the current block subsidy + fees, or 0.25 BTC. This is a constraint on the current rules (where the base subsidy is larger than 0.25 BTC), and forward compatible with the period in the future when the base subsidy is lower than 0.25 BTC.



            Adding @pieter-wuille's point from the comment, the current rules don't limit a miner in how low they can set their reward to be (where the minimum is zero), only how high. That means that a miner doesn't have to reward themselves with the maximum allowed reward. Such occurences have happened on chain before :



            Rootstock accidentally set a zero amount as their reward :
            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/9bf8853b3a823bbfa1e54017ae11a9e1f4d08a854dcce9f24e08114f2c921182



            The first satoshi taken out of money supply :



            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d






            share|improve this answer























            • How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
              – arubi
              2 days ago










            • Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
              – Pieter Wuille
              2 days ago










            • Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
              – James C.
              2 days ago















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The way block reward is computed today is :



            CAmount blockReward = nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus());


            Which means that the block reward is the total fees in the block plus the current base block subsidy.



            It's definitely possible to change this line to (pseudocode) :



            CAmount blockReward = std::min(nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus()), 25000000);


            This will be a soft fork which doesn't allow the reward to be larger than 0.25 BTC



            To explain what I mean in English, the reward is set minimum taken between the current block subsidy + fees, or 0.25 BTC. This is a constraint on the current rules (where the base subsidy is larger than 0.25 BTC), and forward compatible with the period in the future when the base subsidy is lower than 0.25 BTC.



            Adding @pieter-wuille's point from the comment, the current rules don't limit a miner in how low they can set their reward to be (where the minimum is zero), only how high. That means that a miner doesn't have to reward themselves with the maximum allowed reward. Such occurences have happened on chain before :



            Rootstock accidentally set a zero amount as their reward :
            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/9bf8853b3a823bbfa1e54017ae11a9e1f4d08a854dcce9f24e08114f2c921182



            The first satoshi taken out of money supply :



            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d






            share|improve this answer























            • How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
              – arubi
              2 days ago










            • Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
              – Pieter Wuille
              2 days ago










            • Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
              – James C.
              2 days ago













            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            The way block reward is computed today is :



            CAmount blockReward = nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus());


            Which means that the block reward is the total fees in the block plus the current base block subsidy.



            It's definitely possible to change this line to (pseudocode) :



            CAmount blockReward = std::min(nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus()), 25000000);


            This will be a soft fork which doesn't allow the reward to be larger than 0.25 BTC



            To explain what I mean in English, the reward is set minimum taken between the current block subsidy + fees, or 0.25 BTC. This is a constraint on the current rules (where the base subsidy is larger than 0.25 BTC), and forward compatible with the period in the future when the base subsidy is lower than 0.25 BTC.



            Adding @pieter-wuille's point from the comment, the current rules don't limit a miner in how low they can set their reward to be (where the minimum is zero), only how high. That means that a miner doesn't have to reward themselves with the maximum allowed reward. Such occurences have happened on chain before :



            Rootstock accidentally set a zero amount as their reward :
            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/9bf8853b3a823bbfa1e54017ae11a9e1f4d08a854dcce9f24e08114f2c921182



            The first satoshi taken out of money supply :



            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d






            share|improve this answer














            The way block reward is computed today is :



            CAmount blockReward = nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus());


            Which means that the block reward is the total fees in the block plus the current base block subsidy.



            It's definitely possible to change this line to (pseudocode) :



            CAmount blockReward = std::min(nFees + GetBlockSubsidy(pindex->nHeight, chainparams.GetConsensus()), 25000000);


            This will be a soft fork which doesn't allow the reward to be larger than 0.25 BTC



            To explain what I mean in English, the reward is set minimum taken between the current block subsidy + fees, or 0.25 BTC. This is a constraint on the current rules (where the base subsidy is larger than 0.25 BTC), and forward compatible with the period in the future when the base subsidy is lower than 0.25 BTC.



            Adding @pieter-wuille's point from the comment, the current rules don't limit a miner in how low they can set their reward to be (where the minimum is zero), only how high. That means that a miner doesn't have to reward themselves with the maximum allowed reward. Such occurences have happened on chain before :



            Rootstock accidentally set a zero amount as their reward :
            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/9bf8853b3a823bbfa1e54017ae11a9e1f4d08a854dcce9f24e08114f2c921182



            The first satoshi taken out of money supply :



            https://www.smartbit.com.au/tx/5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 days ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            arubi

            789110




            789110












            • How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
              – arubi
              2 days ago










            • Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
              – Pieter Wuille
              2 days ago










            • Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
              – James C.
              2 days ago


















            • How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
              – arubi
              2 days ago










            • Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
              – James C.
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
              – Pieter Wuille
              2 days ago










            • Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
              – James C.
              2 days ago
















            How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            How is it possible to reduce/change block subsidy without breaking consensus? That seems impossible without a hardfork. Limiting included tx’s may be possible, to limit fees.
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            1




            1




            The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
            – arubi
            2 days ago




            The fees, should they push the reward to be higher than 0.25 btc are simply discarded (effectively burned - taken out of circulation entirely). This is soft fork compatible and already happened on chain.
            – arubi
            2 days ago












            Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            Got it. Fees yes. Not subsidy.
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            1




            1




            @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
            – Pieter Wuille
            2 days ago




            @James C: the consensus rule is that the coinbase output cannot be more than the reward. It has always been allowed to be less (and there are plenty of examples of miners forgetting to claim some fees for example with badly written software).
            – Pieter Wuille
            2 days ago












            Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            Ah @PieterWuille I did not known it could be less :) Thanks
            – James C.
            2 days ago










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Changing the block subsidy amount and/or schedule is not possible without breaking consensus.



            It can be possible to limit tx’s included in a block to limit the fees received by the miner with a soft fork. Empty blocks can still be valid.






            share|improve this answer





















            • It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
              – My Quid Pro Quo
              2 days ago










            • Yup my mistake. I understand now.
              – James C.
              2 days ago















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Changing the block subsidy amount and/or schedule is not possible without breaking consensus.



            It can be possible to limit tx’s included in a block to limit the fees received by the miner with a soft fork. Empty blocks can still be valid.






            share|improve this answer





















            • It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
              – My Quid Pro Quo
              2 days ago










            • Yup my mistake. I understand now.
              – James C.
              2 days ago













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Changing the block subsidy amount and/or schedule is not possible without breaking consensus.



            It can be possible to limit tx’s included in a block to limit the fees received by the miner with a soft fork. Empty blocks can still be valid.






            share|improve this answer












            Changing the block subsidy amount and/or schedule is not possible without breaking consensus.



            It can be possible to limit tx’s included in a block to limit the fees received by the miner with a soft fork. Empty blocks can still be valid.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 days ago









            James C.

            59610




            59610












            • It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
              – My Quid Pro Quo
              2 days ago










            • Yup my mistake. I understand now.
              – James C.
              2 days ago


















            • It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
              – My Quid Pro Quo
              2 days ago










            • Yup my mistake. I understand now.
              – James C.
              2 days ago
















            It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
            – My Quid Pro Quo
            2 days ago




            It's not an arbitrary change. It's reducing the amount of coinbase reward.
            – My Quid Pro Quo
            2 days ago












            Yup my mistake. I understand now.
            – James C.
            2 days ago




            Yup my mistake. I understand now.
            – James C.
            2 days ago










            My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            My Quid Pro Quo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81772%2fwould-it-be-possible-to-create-a-soft-fork-for-reducing-miner-reward%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa