Last Updated: 2026-10-27
A Bitcoin halving reduces the new bitcoin subsidy available per block. It does not halve the existing supply, all miner revenue or the amount holders offer for sale. That distinction matters more than a countdown to a supposed bull market.
The schedule is a block rule
Bitcoin Core's versioned subsidy calculation starts at 50 BTC and halves it at the interval specified by the network. The mainnet parameters set that interval to 210,000 blocks. These are protocol calculations, not price forecasts.
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Mainnet block heights | Subsidy per block, BTC |
|---|---|
| 0–209,999 | 50 |
| 210,000–419,999 | 25 |
| 420,000–629,999 | 12.5 |
| 630,000–839,999 | 6.25 |
| 840,000–1,049,999 | 3.125 |
| 1,050,000–1,259,999 | 1.5625 |
The next boundary after 840,000 is 1,050,000. Its calendar date depends on when those blocks are produced. An estimate around 2028 is not a scheduled April appointment. Record the current height and the assumptions behind any countdown instead of treating an estimated date as a trade trigger.
The Bitcoin developer guide separates subsidy from transaction fees. Together they form the block reward available to the miner. Fees vary; they are not cut in half by the subsidy rule.
Work through the miner arithmetic
Assume, for illustration, exactly 144 blocks in a day. At 6.25 BTC per block that would create 900 BTC of subsidy; at 3.125 it would create 450 BTC. Actual block counts vary. Neither number measures how much miners sold that day.
Here is a separate, invented revenue example with a constant BTC price of $60,000:
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Quantity per block | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Subsidy | 6.25 BTC | 3.125 BTC |
| Assumed transaction fees | 0.25 BTC | 0.50 BTC |
| Total reward | 6.50 BTC | 3.625 BTC |
| Dollar revenue at the assumed price | $390,000 | $217,500 |
Revenue falls about 44.23% in this example, not 50%, because the assumed fees change. It says nothing about profit: power, equipment, financing, pool fees and the miner's share of blocks are absent. A miner can sell reserves, borrow, hedge, retain coins or close operations. Inferring market sales directly from new subsidy skips those choices.
Why fewer new coins does not specify a market price
Existing holders can offer coins for sale. Buyers can change the quantities they want at each price. Participants may already have anticipated the subsidy boundary. A supply schedule alone therefore does not establish the direction, magnitude or timing of the next price move.
Keep an issuance thesis separate from its other assumptions:
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Observation or assumption | What would test it? | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Lower new subsidy | Block heights and subsidy rule | Lower total exchange selling |
| Miners selling more reserves | Dated, attributed balance and transfer evidence | Every transfer is a market sale |
| New demand | Defined flow data, with coverage and possible double counting | Buyers will keep paying higher prices |
| A miner faces financial stress | Its filings, debt schedule and costs | A predictable BTC bottom |
| Price rose after an earlier halving | A reproducible price series and window | The halving caused the whole rise |
An exchange deposit attributed to a miner is evidence of a transfer, not proof of the subsequent trade. An ETF's assets under management also change with price; that is different from net new subscriptions. Use the measure your claim actually requires.
Study past windows without selecting the winning endpoint
Before opening a chart, choose a price source, currency, sampling time and fixed windows such as 180 or 365 days before and after a boundary. State how missing prices are handled. Compare the same windows for each event and with non-halving windows. A maximum reached at any later date is a different statistic from a fixed-horizon return.
For example, invented prices of 100 at the event, 140 at the chosen horizon and a later peak of 200 yield a 40% horizon return and a 2× peak multiple. Reporting only the latter disguises both timing and the path. A fall from that peak to 80 is a 60% drawdown; it is not the same as the 20% loss from the event price.
There are few historical halving events, and they occurred amid different market conditions. They are not independent repetitions of a controlled experiment. A table of selected peaks cannot establish a reliable average holding period, an inevitable drawdown or a shrinking sequence that must continue. This article does not reproduce the old page's unverified peak table or claim a newly tested trading strategy.
Separate a purchase schedule from an averaging-down bot
A recurring purchase spends a chosen amount on a schedule. A safety-order bot can instead add exposure when price falls, sometimes increasing each order. Those are different cash requirements and failure modes; see the DCA mechanics and reserve example. Neither becomes profitable because a halving is approaching.
A usable research note ends with a condition that could disprove the thesis and a record of missing evidence. It does not need a portfolio allocation, leverage target or promised exit month. Custody choices add their own tradeoffs: a hardware signer can reduce some key-exposure risks, but malicious approvals, recovery-phrase loss and signing mistakes remain possible.
Educational analysis, not financial advice. All revenue and price examples above are synthetic. No personal trading record, expected return or current market regime is claimed. The site may receive referral commissions elsewhere; no purchase is required for this analysis.