ViaBTC mining statistics can help a miner compare pool performance, network competition, machine output, and operating cost before changing hardware or mining settings. In September 2026, ViaBTC reported about 98.79 EH/s of BTC pool hashrate against roughly 938.03 EH/s for the Bitcoin network, while network difficulty stood near 125.81 T. That gives a miner three useful reference points: personal hashrate versus the pool, pool hashrate versus the network, and revenue versus electricity use. A 5% change in effective hashrate, difficulty, rejection rate, or power efficiency can materially change monthly cash flow when hundreds of ASICs are running continuously.
A miner should first compare local machine output with pool-side records over the same period. ViaBTC states that its real-time hashrate is based on the previous 10 minutes, while daily hashrate represents the previous 24 hours; a miner interface may refresh every 5 seconds, so two screens can show different numbers without either being wrong.
For example, a 200 TH/s ASIC reporting 201 TH/s locally may show 187 TH/s on the pool during part of the day. That is a 6.5% gap, but the gap should not be treated as a hardware fault until both readings cover comparable operating periods.
Pool-side hashrate comes from accepted shares, not from the ASIC’s own estimate of work performed.
The comparison becomes more useful after a machine has run continuously for at least 24 hours. If a nominal 200 TH/s unit averages 190 TH/s over the full pool reporting window, the shortfall is 5%; if 100 identical units behave the same way, about 1 PH/s of expected capacity is missing from the submitted work.
The next check is accepted work rather than headline hashrate. A machine can remain powered, display normal fan speeds, and report its rated TH/s while network problems prevent part of its work from reaching the pool.
A simple operating record can separate the readings:
| Reading | Example | What to compare |
|---|---|---|
| Rated ASIC hashrate | 200 TH/s | Manufacturer specification |
| 24-hour pool hashrate | 192 TH/s | Long-period submitted work |
| Gap | 4% | Recheck after another 24 hours |
| Rejection rate | 0.8% | Compare with the farm’s normal range |
| Power use | 3.5 kW | Check against machine output |
A rejection rate moving from 0.5% to 2.0% deserves attention because accepted work falls even when the ASIC keeps consuming nearly the same electricity. For a farm supplying 10 PH/s, an additional 1.5 percentage points of rejected work is roughly comparable to losing 150 TH/s of useful submitted capacity.
Connection quality therefore belongs beside machine performance. ViaBTC publishes official BTC mining endpoints with global and European addresses as well as failover ports, giving operators alternatives when a local route is unstable. Its August 2026 pool information lists PPS+ and PPLNS as the supported BTC payment methods.
After connection data looks normal, compare personal output with ViaBTC Pool Hashrate and the wider Bitcoin network. ViaBTC’s September 2026 statistics showed about 98.79 EH/s for its BTC pool and roughly 938.03 EH/s for the network, putting the pool near 10.5% of that displayed network hashrate at that observation point.
Pool size does not tell an individual miner how profitable a machine will be, but it gives useful scale for reading block statistics. If a pool represents a material share of network computing power, blocks should arrive more regularly over longer periods than they would for a very small pool, although individual block intervals remain uncertain.
ViaBTC’s displayed BTC statistics also reported 3-day luck of 98.44%, 7-day luck of 91.05%, and 30-day luck of 92.02% when the page was captured. Those figures should be read over several windows because one short period can differ considerably from a longer sample.
Block records show why short samples can mislead. On September 2–3, 2026, ViaBTC listed individual BTC block luck figures ranging from below 20% to above 2,000%, while its total historical luck was close to 99.73%; short block intervals can therefore look unusually favorable or unfavorable without changing the long-run economics of an ASIC.
Difficulty provides another comparison point. The same ViaBTC snapshot listed Bitcoin difficulty near 125.81 T and estimated the next adjustment near 125.01 T, a change of about -0.63%; a miner should compare each difficulty period with revenue per TH/s rather than viewing revenue alone.
Suppose 1 PH/s earns $39 per day before electricity under one set of conditions. If effective revenue per unit of hashrate later falls 8%, daily gross income becomes about $35.88 even though the farm still displays 1 PH/s.
Electricity then determines whether the lower gross income still covers operation. A 3.5 kW machine uses 84 kWh every 24 hours; at $0.05/kWh, power costs $4.20 per day, while $0.08/kWh raises the same bill to $6.72.
| Electricity rate | Daily cost at 3.5 kW | 30-day cost |
|---|---|---|
| $0.04/kWh | $3.36 | $100.80 |
| $0.05/kWh | $4.20 | $126.00 |
| $0.07/kWh | $5.88 | $176.40 |
| $0.08/kWh | $6.72 | $201.60 |
A three-cent difference between $0.05 and $0.08 adds $75.60 per machine over 30 days. Across 250 miners, the difference reaches $18,900 per month, so electricity pricing can outweigh a small change in pool statistics.
Hardware efficiency matters for the same reason. A 200 TH/s ASIC using 3,500 W operates at 17.5 J/TH, while a 140 TH/s unit using 3,010 W is about 21.5 J/TH; the second machine consumes roughly 23% more energy for each terahash produced.
If revenue per TH/s declines 10% during a stronger-difficulty period, the less efficient machine approaches its electricity break-even level sooner. Fleet operators can therefore rank machines by J/TH, 24-hour effective hashrate, rejection rate, and daily electricity cost rather than treating every ASIC as economically identical.
Bitcoin’s block subsidy also belongs in longer planning periods. The April 20, 2024 halving reduced the subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC at block 840,000, while the next scheduled subsidy is 1.5625 BTC; transaction fees remain separate from the subsidy and can change the total reward attached to individual blocks.
That payment structure matters when reading pool income. ViaBTC’s May 2026 documentation states that BTC miners can use PPS+ or PPLNS; under its published schedule, the PPS portion of PPS+ carries a 4% fee, while the PPLNS component is listed at 2%.
ViaBTC also ended SOLO support for all listed mining pools on May 20, 2026. BTC users were left with PPS+ and PPLNS, so older guides that compare ViaBTC BTC SOLO payouts with current settings no longer describe the available 2026 options.
PPS+ and PPLNS should be compared by cash-flow behavior as well as fee percentage. ViaBTC says PPS+ pays the block-reward portion according to submitted shares and current difficulty, while PPLNS uses a miner’s share of pool hashrate across the last five difficulty rounds when a block reaches six confirmations.
For a small operation paying electricity weekly, smoother accounting may be preferable even when another payment method has a lower stated fee. A larger farm with several months of operating cash may be more comfortable with periods where block luck moves below or above 100%.
Revenue records should also be normalized before comparing two dates. A farm earning $400 per day at 10 PH/s produces $40 per PH/s; if it expands to 12 PH/s and earns $444, total revenue rises 11%, but revenue per PH/s falls to $37, a 7.5% decrease in unit output.
Revenue per TH/s is more useful than total revenue when the installed hashrate changes. The same method works across several weeks: record 24-hour pool hashrate, gross BTC earned, electricity use, difficulty, rejected-share percentage, and the selected payment method on the same date.
A purchase can then be tested against several operating cases. Assume a 220 TH/s ASIC costs $3,600, uses 3.55 kW, and currently produces $8.40 per day in gross mining income; electricity at $0.055/kWh costs about $4.69 per day, leaving $3.71 before hosting, maintenance, downtime, and equipment depreciation.
If gross mining income falls 15%, revenue becomes $7.14 and the same electricity bill leaves $2.45. A 30% decline brings revenue to $5.88 and leaves only $1.19 before other expenses, even though the ASIC still hashes at its rated speed.
The same comparison can be applied to machines already installed. An older unit earning $4.60 per day while drawing 3.0 kW consumes 72 kWh; electricity costs $5.04 per day at $0.07/kWh, putting electricity alone $0.44 above gross mining income.
A lower power rate can produce a different result without changing the ASIC or pool. At $0.045/kWh, the same 72 kWh costs $3.24, leaving $1.36 per day before other expenses, which explains why identical hardware can remain online at one site and be uneconomic at another.
Pool statistics are most useful when several fields are read together. A 7% drop in 24-hour hashrate with stable difficulty suggests a different problem from a 7% decline in revenue per TH/s while accepted hashrate remains unchanged.
Compare time window, accepted hashrate, rejection rate, difficulty, electricity cost, and payment method before changing equipment settings.
ViaBTC’s own 2026 guidance recommends checking comparable hashrate windows first, then worker status, rejection rate, earnings records, payout settings, pool statistics, and network difficulty. That order separates a machine or connection issue from a network-level change before money is spent on repairs or replacement hardware.