Can ViaBTC Mining Statistics Help Compare Mining Performance?

Yes. ViaBTC mining statistics can support a useful performance comparison when hashrate, accepted work, payment method, pool luck, difficulty, and observation period are read together. In September 2026, ViaBTC’s BTC statistics showed about 98.79 EH/s of pool hashrate, 125.81 T network difficulty, 52,780 recorded blocks, 19 orphan blocks, and a 0.03% orphan rate. Its 30-day pool luck stood at 92.02%, while total historical luck was 99.73%. Those differences show why a 24-hour or 7-day result cannot fairly represent long-term mining performance. PPS+ and PPLNS also settle the same hashrate differently, so revenue alone is not enough for comparison.

ViaBTC statistics are most useful when the comparison starts with pool-side hashrate rather than a miner’s advertised specification. A 200 TH/s ASIC may report 200–202 TH/s locally while the pool records 193 TH/s over 24 hours because pool estimates are based on submitted shares, not a direct reading from the machine.

A short reading can move much further. A 10-minute display of 175 TH/s does not show that a 200 TH/s machine has lost 12.5% of its computing capacity; share arrival is probabilistic, so short windows produce wider differences than a 24-hour or 7-day average.

For hardware comparisons, the same measurement window matters more than a single high or low hashrate reading. A 7-day average from Miner A should be compared with the same 7-day period from Miner B.

That longer window makes rejected and invalid work easier to evaluate. Two units can each report 200 TH/s locally, while one averages 198 TH/s at the pool and the other averages 188 TH/s because of unstable networking, thermal throttling, repeated restarts, firmware settings, or rejected shares.

Measurement	Miner A	Miner B
Rated hashrate	200 TH/s	200 TH/s
24-hour pool average	198 TH/s	188 TH/s
Difference from rating	1%	6%
Uptime	99.6%	94.1%
Payment method	PPS+	PPS+

The table does not prove the cause of Miner B’s lower result, but it narrows the issue. With the same pool, algorithm, payment method, and 24-hour window, a 10 TH/s gap deserves a check of worker logs, network interruptions, board temperatures, power delivery, and rejected-share behavior.

Revenue becomes useful only after those operating measurements are stable. ViaBTC currently supports PPS+ and PPLNS for BTC, and the two methods assign short-term mining variance differently. In 2026, ViaBTC discontinued SOLO across its coin pools, with the change taking effect on May 20, so older comparisons that include ViaBTC SOLO no longer describe the current BTC setup.

Under PPS+, ViaBTC lists a 4% fee on the block-reward portion settled through PPS. The transaction-fee portion is distributed through PPLNS logic with a listed 2% fee. The pool pays the PPS component according to valid submitted work, so a miner does not need to wait for a corresponding block discovery before that portion is credited.

PPLNS uses another arrangement. ViaBTC lists a 2% fee and allocates block rewards plus transaction fees according to the miner’s share of pool hashrate over the relevant share window when blocks are actually found. Its 2026 documentation uses the previous 5 difficulty rounds and waits for 6 block confirmations for that allocation.

A miner comparing the two methods should therefore read ViaBTC Pool Fees alongside the mining statistics. Comparing a PPS+ account against a PPLNS account using only daily BTC credited can produce a false performance gap even when both machines supplied exactly the same effective hashrate.

A 5% difference in one day of credited BTC is not automatically a 5% difference in miner performance. Payment method, block timing, transaction fees, difficulty, and pool luck can all change the amount credited during that day.

Pool luck gives a good example. ViaBTC’s BTC statistics in September 2026 showed 98.44% luck over 3 days, 91.05% over 7 days, 92.02% over 30 days, and 99.73% over its full recorded history. One pool can therefore look below expectation over a month while remaining close to statistical expectation over a much larger block sample.

Block-level records show even larger short-window differences. ViaBTC recorded one BTC block on September 3, 2026 after a runtime of only 4 minutes 45 seconds, with displayed luck of 2,554.37%. Another block that day followed 5 hours 6 minutes 39 seconds of runtime and showed 30.46% luck.

Those two blocks came from the same pool infrastructure. The large difference came from the probabilistic nature of SHA-256 block discovery, not from a machine becoming dozens of times faster for several minutes. For PPLNS users, that irregular timing can make daily credited amounts look very different even when their workers remain steady.

Difficulty adds another layer. ViaBTC’s BTC page showed network difficulty at 125.81 T in September 2026, with network hashrate around 938.03 EH/s. A machine producing the same 200 TH/s before and after a difficulty increase can submit stable work while receiving less BTC per unit of time.

For that reason, comparing March revenue with September revenue without adjusting for network conditions says little about hardware quality. The stronger test keeps hashrate, uptime, rejected work, payment method, and network difficulty visible together.

A simple comparison record could use five fields:

• 24-hour and 7-day pool-side hashrate;

• worker uptime percentage;

• accepted versus rejected work;

• network difficulty during the measurement period;

• payout method and applicable pool fee.

Adding electricity data improves the comparison further. A miner producing 200 TH/s at 3,500 W uses 17.5 joules per terahash, while another producing the same hashrate at 4,500 W uses 22.5 J/TH. Both can look almost identical on a pool dashboard while the second machine consumes about 28.6% more power for the same nominal hashrate.

Pool statistics therefore measure only part of mining performance. They show submitted work and credited mining output, but they do not know a facility’s electricity rate, cooling consumption, transformer loss, repair expense, firmware setting, or hardware purchase cost.

Consider two 200 TH/s miners that each operate for 24 hours. If the first site pays $0.05/kWh and the second pays $0.10/kWh, a 3.5 kW machine consumes 84 kWh per day, costing $4.20 at the first site and $8.40 at the second. Their ViaBTC mining records may still show nearly identical hashrate.

Pool infrastructure can also be evaluated through block records. ViaBTC’s BTC statistics showed 52,780 total blocks and 19 orphan blocks in the September 2026 snapshot, producing a displayed orphan rate of 0.03%. A low historical rate provides more context than seeing one isolated orphan event.

Sample size matters here because 1 orphan block among 20 blocks would look very different from 19 among more than 52,000 recorded blocks. Long-run statistics reduce the influence of individual events and make comparisons between periods more useful.

Transaction fees should also be separated from the block subsidy. BTC blocks can carry different fee amounts depending on network activity, so two otherwise similar mining periods can produce different credited amounts. ViaBTC’s PPS+ structure keeps the PPS-settled block reward and PPLNS-settled transaction-fee component separate for fee treatment.

That separation matters when reviewing revenue per TH/s. A higher BTC amount during a period with elevated transaction fees does not show that the ASIC processed hashes more efficiently. Hashrate and accepted work describe machine contribution; block subsidy, transaction fees, difficulty, and payment rules describe how that contribution was paid.

ViaBTC’s public page also reported approximately $0.039 in daily earnings per TH at the September 2026 snapshot. A displayed estimate like that is useful for a same-period reference, but it should not be treated as a fixed production rate because difficulty, fees, BTC price, and block conditions change.

A better comparison keeps the time frame fixed. Run Miner A and Miner B for the same 7 days, place them on the same BTC pool and settlement method, record pool-side hashrate and uptime, then compare accepted work before looking at credited BTC.

If Miner A averages 199 TH/s with 99.8% uptime while Miner B averages 187 TH/s with 93.5% uptime, the operating difference is already visible. If both average about 199 TH/s with similar accepted work but daily credited BTC differs under different settlement methods, the payment structure deserves more attention than the hardware.

ViaBTC statistics can therefore support comparisons between machines, time periods, and payment methods when the variables are kept separate. The most reliable reading uses multi-day hashrate, uptime, accepted work, difficulty, fee structure, block statistics, and power consumption together rather than ranking miners from one daily revenue figure.