<p>Likely you're correct, it's not useful in practice. People could, however, use value destruction as an costly signal. </p>

<p>Voting example; I run a poll of mining pools; number of Satoshis less than the full block reward, up to 5, is the vote for which of 5 proposed algorithms to run in the future. Once a majority of blocks over some time period vote for option X, everyone agrees to switch protocols. (This could allow identityless voting by miners.)</p>

<p>Commitment example; A miner can "promise" something, and commit the value destroyed as a signal that they are willing to do it. If a miner wants to extort the network, such commitment could be effective in showing that they are serious.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-30T22:06:58.470Z
(These examples / ideas are intended as a thought piece. It's unlikely they are ever the best way to do the things mentioned.)
David Manheim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-30T22:05:57.423Z
2015-12-30T22:05:57.423Z
David Manheim
<p>In "Mastering Bitcoin", the author notes (<a href="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=0636920032281">source</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The maximum number of coins mined is the upper limit of possible mining rewards for bitcoin. In practice, a miner may intentionally mine a block taking less than the full reward. Such blocks have already been mined and more may be mined in the future resulting in a lower total issuance of the currency.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I understand that a possible answer is "just because" but I'm wondering if there are other reasons behind such an action.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-11T10:25:47.443Z
Pieter Wuille mentioned some more blocks that took less than the full reward on [Will there be 21 million bitcoins eventually?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38998/5406).
Murch
<mining-reward><mastering-bitcoin>
Why would a Bitcoin miner take less than the full reward?
Kostas
# Why would a Bitcoin miner take less than the full reward?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-30)

In "Mastering Bitcoin", the author notes ([source](http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=0636920032281)):

> The maximum number of coins mined is the upper limit of possible mining rewards for bitcoin. In practice, a miner may intentionally mine a block taking less than the full reward. Such blocks have already been mined and more may be mined in the future resulting in a lower total issuance of the currency.

I understand that a possible answer is "just because" but I'm wondering if there are other reasons behind such an action.

**Tags:** mining-reward, mastering-bitcoin

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Pieter Wuille mentioned some more blocks that took less than the full reward on [Will there be 21 million bitcoins eventually?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38998/5406).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-12-30. Score: 6

Likely you're correct, it's not useful in practice. People could, however, use value destruction as an costly signal.

Voting example; I run a poll of mining pools; number of Satoshis less than the full block reward, up to 5, is the vote for which of 5 proposed algorithms to run in the future. Once a majority of blocks over some time period vote for option X, everyone agrees to switch protocols. (This could allow identityless voting by miners.)

Commitment example; A miner can "promise" something, and commit the value destroyed as a signal that they are willing to do it. If a miner wants to extort the network, such commitment could be effective in showing that they are serious.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: (These examples / ideas are intended as a thought piece. It's unlikely they are ever the best way to do the things mentioned.)  

---

