{"id":12416,"date":"2026-08-26T17:47:30","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T17:47:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12416"},"modified":"2026-08-26T17:47:30","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T17:47:30","slug":"bitcoins-security-risk-starts-when-one-block-gets-far-more-fees-than-the-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12416","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin\u2019s security risk starts when one block gets far more fees than the next"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Bitcoin\u2019s security-budget debate usually starts with one total: how much miners collect in transaction fees as the block subsidy shrinks.<\/p>\n

A July 2026 NBER working paper by Fabian Sch\u00e4r, Dario Th\u00fcrkauf, and David Yermack points to a second variable. Using data from 2017 through 2025, the authors report that larger fee differences between adjacent Bitcoin blocks are associated with more competing blocks at the same height and a longer wait for the next block.<\/p>\n

The evidence is observational and identifies a network-level relationship, while miner intent and the cause of any individual block race remain unresolved. The finding still gives wallets, miners, and users a measurable signal: Bitcoin security incentives respond to how fees arrive from block to block, as well as how much the network pays over time.<\/p>\n

Fee gaps create a different mining incentive<\/h2>\n

Bitcoin currently pays miners a fixed subsidy of 3.125 BTC for each block, plus the transaction fees included in that block. Successive subsidy reductions place more long-run weight on fees as a source of mining revenue.<\/p>\n

As of Aug. 26, a daily Glassnode measure put transaction fees at about 0.70% of miner revenue. A BTC.network report covering Aug. 14 through Aug. 21 calculated a 0.67% share for the week. The two snapshots cover different periods, but each places fees below 1%.<\/p>\n

\n

Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

Bitcoin is getting too expensive to mine profitably: What breaks first?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/div>\n

Block-level data can show much sharper variation than those aggregate readings. An Aug. 26 Blockchain.com block snapshot showed 0.0077 BTC in fees in block 964,120 and 0.0536 BTC in block 964,121, an almost seven-fold change between adjacent blocks. The comparison illustrates how sharply fee rewards can vary from one block to the next, while the fee values alone leave miner behavior unresolved.<\/p>\n

That prize shapes the choice described by Bitcoin Optech\u2019s fee-sniping reference. A miner can extend the newest block and compete for the transactions currently waiting in the mempool. It can also attempt to recreate a valuable prior block, claim that block\u2019s fees, and then extend the alternative chain.<\/p>\n

The attempt begins behind the accepted tip, and its economic appeal rises when fees in the prior block greatly exceed the expected fees in a new tip-extending block. Hash-rate share, propagation, and other miners\u2019 reactions affect the odds, so the incentive is probabilistic. Variable fees can change the payoff calculation even during periods when the network\u2019s aggregate fee revenue is low.<\/p>\n

The working paper tests whether that logic appears in historical network behavior. In a co-author explanation of the research, Th\u00fcrkauf defines a block race as competing blocks at the same height. The authors associate larger adjacent-block fee gaps with more of those races.<\/p>\n

They also report a lower probability that the next block appears in the first seconds after a large fee gap, a timing pattern consistent with some hash rate contesting the prior height. Since the analysis is observational, the result establishes an association at the network level and leaves individual miner motives unresolved.<\/p>\n

That distinction shifts the measurement focus because monthly or annual fee totals describe Bitcoin\u2019s overall security income, whereas adjacent-block fee gaps isolate brief periods when revisiting the prior height can carry a larger potential payoff.<\/p>\n