A Revenue-Sharing Fix for Bitcoin's Coming Fee Crisis: Split the Block Reward to Kill the Incentive to Fork

As Bitcoin's mining subsidy shrinks toward zero, winner-take-all fees create dangerous forking incentives. This paper proposes splitting block rewards among miners to restore stability.

Imagine a poker tournament where the entire prize pool goes to first place. Players with big stacks start making reckless all-in bets not because they have good hands, but because the payoff structure rewards aggression over sound play. Now imagine the tournament director changes the payout — first place still gets the lion's share, but second through fifth get meaningful cuts. Suddenly the reckless all-ins stop making sense. That's the core mechanism here: changing the payout structure of Bitcoin mining to suppress destructive behavior that becomes rational when block subsidies vanish. The committed claim: a tunable reward-splitting parameter α — where the block winner keeps an α-fraction and the rest is distributed to other miners — can suppress undercutting and fork-based deviations in transaction-fee-only regimes without making selfish mining worse. This isn't hypothetical futurism; Bitcoin's block subsidy halves every four years and is already down to 3.125 BTC. The paper addresses what happens when fees dominate, and the current winner-take-all structure creates a game-theoretic landmine. The architecture is straightforward game theory plus multi-agent reinforcement learning simulation. The authors derive a closed-form local profitability condition for one-step "Function-Fork" deviations — essentially the math that tells you when it's profitable to undercut the previous block's fees by building a competing block. The key variables are the winner-side reward fraction α, a loser-side subsidy, and the share of honest hash power. Simulations use learned strategies (not hand-coded bots) to explore whether honest mining remains a dominant strategy across parameter space. This places the work squarely in the Carlsten et al. (2016) lineage — the seminal paper that first identified fee-sniping instability — and extends it with a concrete mechanism rather than just a diagnosis. The ladder position is honest but incomplete. The primary comparison target is Carlsten et al.'s winner-take-all model, which showed instability once subsidies vanish. This paper demonstrates that reward-splitting reduces the honest hash-power threshold needed to suppress aggressive forking. But the comparison is largely structural — the paper doesn't benchmark against other proposed solutions like transaction-fee smoothing, EIP-1559-style mechanisms, or Ethereum's proposer-builder separation. The analysis is self-contained within the Function-Fork deviation family and shows that even when forking becomes dominant under splitting, the learned strategy is the "least aggressive variant studied." That's a meaningful result, but the competitive landscape of proposed solutions is richer than the paper acknowledges. Integrity is mixed. On the positive side, the analytical component derives explicit conditions from a well-specified model, and the simulation uses multi-agent RL rather than hand-tuned heuristics — the agents discover strategies rather than being told what to do. On the negative side, all validation is internal: the authors' own model evaluated by the authors' own simulation. No independent replication exists. The parameter sweeps appear thorough for the deviation families studied (Function-Fork and selfish mining), but there's no pre-registration, no community benchmark, and the code availability is not stated. The paper acknowledges the scope limitation — they study specific deviation families, not the full strategy space — which is honest. The milestone question cuts to the real issue: Bitcoin's next halving (2028) drops the subsidy to 1.5625 BTC, and fee dominance becomes increasingly relevant with each subsequent halving. The practical threshold isn't a qubit count — it's the block-subsidy-to-fee ratio at which instability materializes in the real network. The paper doesn't name this number explicitly, but the implication is clear: if fees routinely exceed the subsidy (already happening during congestion spikes), the instability regime is already partially active. A real-network simulation calibrated to actual mempool dynamics and fee distributions would be the natural next step. The obvious experiment not run: testing reward splitting against a broader deviation taxonomy (beyond Function-Fork and selfish mining) and against real Bitcoin mempool fee distributions rather than stylized ones. The honest read is (a) — compute and complexity constraints. Multi-agent RL over the full strategy space of Bitcoin mining deviations is genuinely hard, and the paper's scope is already ambitious for what appears to be a university research team. The other missing piece — a protocol-level feasibility analysis of how you'd actually implement reward splitting in Bitcoin's consensus rules without a hard fork — is likely (c), saved for follow-on work that bridges theory and deployment.