Bitcoin mining difficulty hits lowest level since March as price tops $57K

[yhiaali3]

The drop in mining difficulty should spell relief for the largest mining firms.

Bitcoin mining difficulty dropped by more than 5% on July 5 to a quarterly low of 79.50 terahashes per second (TH/s). This marked the largest reduction since March when it briefly dipped below 80 TH/s.

Difficulty spiked between March and May, reaching an all-time high of 88.10 TH/s before slowly settling to where it currently stands at the time of publication.

Hashrates are updated every 2,016 blocks, which takes approximately two weeks. With few exceptions, during Bitcoin’s lifetime, hashrate has typically grown month-to-month.

Back in 2014, for example, the hashrate measured about 1.1 gigahashes per second. This was low enough that most desktop PCs could mine Bitcoin (the higher the hashrate, the more powerful and energy efficient a mining rig needs to be to be profitable).

Toward the end of 2017, as adoption began picking up, the hashrate reached the terahash mark for the first time. And as of July 6, 2024, it remains at 79.5 TH/s until the next difficulty update.

Under the current difficulty measure of 79.5 TH/s, mining pool F2Pool estimates that an ASIC rig with a watts per terahash efficiency rate of 26 or better (lower) would be profitable as long as Bitcoin’s price doesn’t dip below the $54,000 threshold.


“With a $BTC price of $54k, ASICs with Unit Power of 26 W/T or less can make a profit. We estimate this at $0.07 per kWh.”
If Bitcoin’s price dips lower, more efficient rigs will be needed to keep miners profitable. If it remains the same, conditions should be acceptable for the largest miners, especially those in places where energy subsidies exist for mining facilities.

Source
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-mining-difficulty-hits-lowest-level-march-price-tops-57-k

If the price of Bitcoin remains at 54 kWh, $0.07 per kWh will still be acceptable for miners. This dynamic of decreasing mining difficulty is a healthy factor for the network and helps miners stay in their work and keep the network running. But what if the price drops even more than that and continues to decline? What steps can miners take to stay in place?

[ABCbits]

This dynamic of decreasing mining difficulty is a healthy factor for the network and helps miners stay in their work and keep the network running.

You have unique perspective. I've seen some people worry about declining difficulty/hashrate since it leads to less security.

But what if the price drops even more than that and continues to decline? What steps can miners take to stay in place?

Honestly i only could think 2 option,
1. Stop their mining activity.
2. Continue activity and hope price will rise, mainly if they already paid electricity and other operational cost in advance.

I also hear hashrate marketplace (such as NiceHash) promise a bit higher income than mining BTC directly, but i don't know if it's still true.

[MrSpasybo]

If the price of Bitcoin remains at 54 kWh, $0.07 per kWh will still be acceptable for miners. This dynamic of decreasing mining difficulty is a healthy factor for the network and helps miners stay in their work and keep the network running. But what if the price drops even more than that and continues to decline? What steps can miners take to stay in place?

I am not surprised by this situation. The explosion of Inscription and BRC-20 has brought high profits to miners and is seen as a way for them to continue to exist after the halving, but history repeats itself and many miners are still facing financial difficulties to the point of having to leave this mining industry.

Efficient miners can still be profitable or at least can continue to operate without profit. Miners who have prepared for the halving will continue to operate for the next few months to wait for BTC price increase. Weaker miners may be able to shut down temporarily or sell themselves to larger mining companies. I always want the Bitcoin network to be more decentralized, but the truth is happening and BTC mining is becoming a privilege in the hands of large companies.

[yhiaali3]

You have unique perspective. I've seen some people worry about declining difficulty/hashrate since it leads to less security.

Even with the decrease in mining difficulty, the security of the Bitcoin network is still strong, even if it has become somewhat lower, On the other hand, the miners remaining at their work is very important for the security and stability of the network. This is an important matter that can never be ignored. The decrease in mining difficulty helps them to remain in their positions.

Honestly i only could think 2 option,
1. Stop their mining activity.
2. Continue activity and hope price will rise, mainly if they already paid electricity and other operational cost in advance.

Perhaps there is another option by increasing fees, but I do not know what its impact will be on the network because we have seen how many problems have occurred due to high fees.

[ABCbits]

You have unique perspective. I've seen some people worry about declining difficulty/hashrate since it leads to less security.

Even with the decrease in mining difficulty, the security of the Bitcoin network is still strong, even if it has become somewhat lower, On the other hand, the miners remaining at their work is very important for the security and stability of the network. This is an important matter that can never be ignored. The decrease in mining difficulty helps them to remain in their positions.

You're right, few percent drop wouldn't even have noticeable impact on Bitcoin network security. I was mentioning other people concern.

Honestly i only could think 2 option,
1. Stop their mining activity.
2. Continue activity and hope price will rise, mainly if they already paid electricity and other operational cost in advance.

Perhaps there is another option by increasing fees, but I do not know what its impact will be on the network because we have seen how many problems have occurred due to high fees.

But Bitcoiner is the one who set fee on transaction they create. They could attempt to manipulate it (e.g. cooperate with other pool to only accept TX with high fee rate) or ask full node to only relay transaction with high fee rate, but such action unlikely to succeed.

[Stompix]

This dynamic of decreasing mining difficulty is a healthy factor for the network and helps miners stay in their work and keep the network running.

You have unique perspective. I've seen some people worry about declining difficulty/hashrate since it leads to less security.

Truly unique, miners shutting down because they face a loss is a relief for miners 
Also, the relief is highly exaggerated, there was 5% drop in difficulty but we also lost close to 1.5% of the reward because of lower fees, so if anything the biggest relief is from the price climbing back to 58k more than anything else!

“With a $BTC price of $54k, ASICs with Unit Power of 26 W/T or less can make a profit. We estimate this at $0.07 per kWh.”

Hmm, income per th/s is 5 cents, cost at 7 cents per kwh is 4.3 cents!
The cheapest cost per th/s is 10$, so it will ROI in 1600 days! That's just power no other costs.

[Husires]

In a rising market, the price of Bitcoin is not greatly affected by mining difficulty because those who mine take into account market variables and can bear the loss for several months, but in a falling market it can be a good indicator of the approaching bottom or determine whether the price will decline further or will stabilize.

[yhiaali3]

But Bitcoiner is the one who set fee on transaction they create. They could attempt to manipulate it (e.g. cooperate with other pool to only accept TX with high fee rate) or ask full node to only relay transaction with high fee rate, but such action unlikely to succeed.

Yes, I agree with you. In practice, Bitcoiners are the ones who decide the fees they will pay for a transaction, whether it is high or low. Miners cannot determine the fees, but they have the option to give priority to transactions with higher fees.

But what I mean is that maybe in the future, if mining becomes unprofitable, the Bitcoin community can increase network fees to help miners stay in their work, because if miners decide to stop, it may cause severe damage to the network.

[ABCbits]

--snip--
But what I mean is that maybe in the future, if mining becomes unprofitable, the Bitcoin community can increase network fees to help miners stay in their work, because if miners decide to stop, it may cause severe damage to the network.

That makes sense. I can see full node would only relay TX with higher fee rate to make some miners keep mining.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

This dynamic of decreasing mining difficulty is a healthy factor for the network and helps miners stay in their work and keep the network running.

You have unique perspective. I've seen some people worry about declining difficulty/hashrate since it leads to less security.

Truly unique, miners shutting down because they face a loss is a relief for miners 
Also, the relief is highly exaggerated, there was 5% drop in difficulty but we also lost close to 1.5% of the reward because of lower fees, so if anything the biggest relief is from the price climbing back to 58k more than anything else!

Yes, the price rebounce should be the actual focus  here! The difficulty adjustment is merely one of the supporting characters, it is bizarre but it serves as an important but minor character. However, let’s get back to basics: the price determines everything in the market, and it’s the price that miners are looking at. It’s like price is the propeller that propels the ship forward, and the difficulty adjustment is just tweaking of sails. Of course, what matters is maintaining proper sail settings, but in the end, it is the engine that is moving you where you wish to be. Therefore, let’s watch the price and stay circumspect and not get too fixated on the difficulty adjustment. It's all about perspective!

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

But what I mean is that maybe in the future, if mining becomes unprofitable, the Bitcoin community can increase network fees to help miners stay in their work, because if miners decide to stop, it may cause severe damage to the network.

That's a pretty cool observation! True, the flexibility provided by the capability to alter network fees to be able to cater for the needs of miners is a brilliant aspect that underscores the community’s willingness to ensure the network remains secure and stable. As if it were some kind of protection system that would protect the network and motivate miners to keep on with the verification processes. Higher fees would make miners more profitable; therefore, the miners would ensure they continue with the mining. It assists in averting changes in the network and any vulnerabilities that exposes the network during unfavourable market environments. It is perhaps a marketing strategy that proves the community’s dedication to ensuring the network’s authenticity is maintained.

[Stompix]

In a rising market, the price of Bitcoin is not greatly affected by mining difficulty because those who mine take into account market variables and can bear the loss for several months, but in a falling market it can be a good indicator of the approaching bottom or determine whether the price will decline further or will stabilize.

There is no such thing!
If miners could enforce a bottom price we would simply buy twice as much gear and drive the cost for one BTC to 5 trillion!

In reality, it doesn't work like that, the price goes lower, miners quit, and the same amount of Bitcoin is produced, this is not oil when if the price goes too low there is less oil on the market and that produces a price growth, there is no actual demand that needs to be satisfied and that can't be satisfied with 1/10 of the mining hashrate!

That's a pretty cool observation! True, the flexibility provided by the capability to alter network fees to be able to cater for the needs of miners is a brilliant aspect that underscores the community’s willingness to ensure the network remains secure and stable.

Except it doesn't exist, again!
You can't enforce fees in the blockchain, people will simply quit using it if miners don't mine transactions under let's say 50sat/vb. Besides you would need total control over all mining which means centralization!

Nothing brilliant at all in it, more like a disaster waiting to happen!

[yhiaali3]

That's a pretty cool observation! True, the flexibility provided by the capability to alter network fees to be able to cater for the needs of miners is a brilliant aspect that underscores the community’s willingness to ensure the network remains secure and stable.

Except it doesn't exist, again!
You can't enforce fees in the blockchain, people will simply quit using it if miners don't mine transactions under let's say 50sat/vb. Besides you would need total control over all mining which means centralization!

Nothing brilliant at all in it, more like a disaster waiting to happen!

But this disaster will actually happen in the future. If not in this cycle, then perhaps after four or five cycles and halving the rewards in each cycle. After 4-5 halvings, miners will receive less than 0.2BTC mining reward? Do you think this number will be enough to keep mining profitable? Certainly not.

Until then, a rise in the price of Bitcoin will be the best solution for miners to survive, but as time passes and mining rewards decrease every four years, the only source of profit for miners will be network fees.

[Stompix]

But this disaster will actually happen in the future. If not in this cycle, then perhaps after four or five cycles and halving the rewards in each cycle. After 4-5 halvings, miners will receive less than 0.2BTC mining reward? Do you think this number will be enough to keep mining profitable? Certainly not.

Yup, and as a miner I have warned for a year everyone about this, but since it's projected to happen in 10-15 years obviously people don't care!

Miners can't force you to pay fees in order to keep mining, the moment we (as a pool) refuse tx under 100sat/vb is the moment Bitcoin stops being an attractive p2p currency, the moment the hashrate goes down to 10% of what's now is the moment a company with enough money like Riot can take over the entire hashrate and basically force their own rules on it, blacklisting transactions, forcing fees, not mining at certain hours to save on electricity tariffs and so on been reverse blocks when they want!!

User and dev must understand that in order to protect the network you have to pay for that protection!

[yhiaali3]

But this disaster will actually happen in the future. If not in this cycle, then perhaps after four or five cycles and halving the rewards in each cycle. After 4-5 halvings, miners will receive less than 0.2BTC mining reward? Do you think this number will be enough to keep mining profitable? Certainly not.

Yup, and as a miner I have warned for a year everyone about this, but since it's projected to happen in 10-15 years obviously people don't care!

Miners can't force you to pay fees in order to keep mining, the moment we (as a pool) refuse tx under 100sat/vb is the moment Bitcoin stops being an attractive p2p currency, the moment the hashrate goes down to 10% of what's now is the moment a company with enough money like Riot can take over the entire hashrate and basically force their own rules on it, blacklisting transactions, forcing fees, not mining at certain hours to save on electricity tariffs and so on been reverse blocks when they want!!

User and dev must understand that in order to protect the network you have to pay for that protection!

Yes, your words are completely correct and profound. These are fundamental points that must be carefully discussed in the Bitcoin community until we get a solution that is satisfactory to both parties, miners and users together. Fees that are acceptable to both parties must be reached.

On the one hand, it satisfies the miners and maintains their profits, and on the other hand, it does not bother users and makes them think about an alternative network or solutions. In addition, we do not want to transform the network into a centralized position, as you mentioned, by having one of the mining companies take over and impose its own rules.

Of course, this is a difficult point to solve because miners want to raise fees while users want to reduce them. I do not know if the problem can be solved in the future, but users must understand that raising fees is in the interest of the network’s continuity and security and the preservation of their Bitcoin.