Remix.run Logo
Bitcoin miners are losing on every coin produced as difficulty drops(coindesk.com)
94 points by PaulHoule 2 hours ago | 86 comments
dmk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The headline is dramatic but this is literally how bitcoin is designed to work. Miners leave, difficulty drops, costs go down, mining becomes profitable again. The interesting part isn’t the loss per coin, it’s how long the lag between unprofitable mining and difficulty adjustment keeps forced selling pressure on the market.

arbuge 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'm far from a crypto expert but aren't costs largely GPUs and electricity here?

Those are now being driven by massive AI demand and are likely to remain so for the forseeable future. So how would costs go down?

vardump 3 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't think GPUs are competitive at all. You need specialized mining rigs with bitcoin mining specialized chips.

didgetmaster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It sounds very similar to things like oil production, gold mining, and even farming. When the price is high, everyone wants in on the action. As supply explodes, the prices drop. Once prices get low enough, the costs to pump the next barrel of oil, find the next ounce of gold, or harvest the next acre of a certain crop; exceed the reward. When that happens, wells are shut down, mining operations suspended, and different crops planted. The cycle begins again.

eterm 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There's a soft failure-mode for bitcoin where due to the alternating difficulty adjustment, you could end up with people only mining every other 2016-block adjustment.

Let's call this cycle A and cycle B.

If A is too hard, miners drop out, cycle B gets easier, miners flood back, cycle A gets harder.

This results in the hard cycle getting longer and the easy cycle getting shorter.

This isn't completely critical as there is I believe a small damping effect, so it isn't completely lethal to bitcoin, but a key thing about bitcoin mining is that whether other people are mining or not doesn't actually affect your own profitiability.

Other people dropping out doesn't actually mean you get more bitcoins per hour/watt, it only affects the next difficulty adjustment as a secondary effect.

londons_explore 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

The damping effect is that part of your costs are the hardware, space, depreciation etc. leaving that stuff idle costs money - so it makes sense to mine in the less profitable periods too.

Nursie 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is an interesting missing link in the feedback cycle with Bitcoin though - the same amount is produced regardless, supply does not contract with demand.

chistev 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Satoshi thought of everything, man.

JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If "difficulty drops, costs go down" so ought the price? Isn't that basic economics? Or are they chasing the "phase difference", lag, between supply demand?

AlOwain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I am not certain; but, costs do not have a causative relationship to prices. Prices only go down because as the cost of production goes down, supply increases. It is a correlative relationship.

Bitcoin's supply won't increase as costs go down, unlike other assets.

Joker_vD 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

> costs do not have a causative relationship to prices. Prices only go down because as the cost of production goes down, supply increases.

Um. That's a causative relationship, even if it's mediated, but it's still causative. And generally, the relationship is even more direct: the suppliers are quite reluctant to sell at the price lower than their costs unless they expect the prices go up soon enough™, so the lower boundaries for the prices exist.

maxerickson an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The mining reward isn't a direct transaction that has a price.

Competing for it is more of a game that has a cost to participate in.

andy81 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Price isn't affected by mining difficulty, only the other direction.

Aperocky 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This only works when the difficult drop rates are below miner leaving rates.

Which in normal times, are something taken for granted, but once it does happen, the edge case collapse the entire system.

edit: the earlier language is not exact, the scenario is an exponential drop of value that results in exponential drop in miner willing to mine until this discrepancy can be resolved. i.e. the system is not protected against extreme volatility (e.g. -99% over a block cycle)

samrus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No but if more miners leave then dofficulty with drop faster right? Its modelling supply and demand curves which are a stable equilibrium in these circumstances

RichardLake an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Might be wrong about what Aperocky is alluding to but there is an entirely theoretical edge case. The time to the next difficulty adjustment is based on the current speed of mining, and the possible change in difficulty is capped. With enough minors leaving it will drop the speed of mining/network speed/ and push out the expected time to the next difficulty adjustment. I can't think of any realistic way this can occur given the miners that stay will (personally) be producing blocks as often, the increase in time being balanced out by being a larger proportionate of the mining rate. They don't care if they get 1% of the blocks, which average about 20 mins per block or 5% of the blocks that average 100mins per block.

the_mitsuhiko an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Difficulty only adjusts every 2016 blocks. If the system gets out of whack enough it could slow down to a crawl for an extended period of time.

In practice it’s not much of an issue because bitcoin is not use for commerce but it’s a store of value and it some of the trades are not even on chain.

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but once it does happen, the edge case collapse the entire system.

Which is when exactly, and how likely is that to happen? It hasn't happened yet in ~14 years, but I guess "never say never". There is a lot of money saying it won't happen very soon though.

derangedHorse 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. If the difficulty lowers at a lower rate than miners leaving then the difficulty rate will stop dropping.

knocte 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> below miner leaving rates.

What does this mean, sorry?

> the edge case collapse the entire system.

If you mean that if it reaches a certain point, the entire system will collapse, it means you don't understand the difficulty adjustment. If it's too expensive to mine, then some miners leave, which makes blocktimes be longer, but not to worry because the consequence of that it just that difficulty will go down, which means that you need less hashrate to mine (and maybe some of those miners that leave will come back because it is profitable again for them). This means that it is essentially impossible for all miners to leave at the same time; some of them stay even if at a loss, and some of them are just hobbyists that can already feed their miners with solar power (so there's really no loss for them in leaving them connected).

raverbashing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yup

The problem with BTC going down is that it's a double whammy of not only BTC going down but also the cost of its shovels going up

Before: BTC pays $100k but a shovel costs $300

Now: BTC pays $70k but a shovel costs $$??

Bitcoin asked the right questions but came back with the wrong answers

andai an hour ago | parent [-]

What's a shovel?

metrix an hour ago | parent [-]

They're using the analogy of mining for gold. the cost of a shovel/pitchfork goes up when the price of gold goes down - which is a double whammy

shlant an hour ago | parent [-]

you didn't answer the question. A shovel in this case is the equipment + energy needed to mine (GPU's etc.)

raverbashing an hour ago | parent [-]

Which is pretty much obvious to anyone who has heard of bitcoin in the year of our lord 2026

Especially since the "sell shovels during a gold rush" has been used to apply to nVidia

Scholmo 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its still true and shows one of many issues with bitcoin.

Based on bitcoin cryptobros, you need a certain amount of independent miners for the 'quality' of bitcoins. A bitcoin miner if its a state, can operate with a loss a lot longer if not even infinit, than the decentralized normal people (who do not exist anyway).

It also creates a lot of pressure on miners if you do not run your gpus, yuou are also at a loss, which can break the mining for everyone if too many in parallel go offline, than go olnine again because difficulty droped to much.

And if it becomes to volatile, no one wants to risk it anymore

bdcravens 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

> if you do not run your gpus

Bitcoin hasn't been viably mineable on GPUs for over ten years. It requires specialized hardware.

As such, mining is typically restricted to those with massive capital investment in a single-purpose, so you really won't see random offloading and onloading of that capacity. As long as it's marginally profitable (with capital investment being a sunk cost, this is the price where it's more than ongoing costs), those miners will keep their machines running.

illiac786 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What does “leave” in this context mean?

tromp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Turn off their mining rigs.

eru an hour ago | parent [-]

Or use it for other coins.

tromp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

As you can see on https://www.f2pool.com/coins other coins using SHA256 as PoW algorithm only amount to about 1% of Bitcoin's daily dollars of Pow Produced, so if any nontrivial amount of hash moves there, then those will soon become unprofitable too.

pydry an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They all correlate with bitcoin. Same problem probably applies.

jfengel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Stop mining.

KellyCriterion an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

...and sitting on a lot of ASICs which are soon worthless....

ajross an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"stop"

(Obviously the equipment doesn't go away. You can start it again. But if you can't make a buck doing something, you won't do it.)

illiac786 an hour ago | parent [-]

But I mean, their bitcoins are not going away, their wallets are still there, their bitcoins also right? I thought bitcoin mining was proportionally hard to the number of already mined bitcoins, not the number of people mining?

I probably should look this up in wikipedia first.

haakon an hour ago | parent [-]

It's a common misunderstanding that mining just gets harder and harder as time goes by and more coins are minted. It's often misreported that way. But in fact, the difficulty is dynamic and adjusts itself to keep minting at the predetermined rate regardless of the number of participants. Mining has gotten harder on long timelines, but only because more computing power has been added.

xigoi an hour ago | parent [-]

Doesn’t that contradict the Wikipedia article?

> Miners who successfully create a new block with a valid nonce can collect transaction fees from the included transactions and a fixed reward in bitcoins. To claim this reward, a special transaction called a coinbase is included in the block, with the miner as the payee. All bitcoins in existence have been created through this type of transaction. This reward is halved every 210,000 blocks until ₿21 million have been issued in total, which is expected to occur around the year 2140. Afterward, miners will only earn from transaction fees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin (emphasis mine)

bawolff 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Difficulty and block rewards are separate things. There is no contradiction here.

Block reward stays constant, amount of work required (on average) to get a block reward is dynamic in order to make it so that total number of rewards given out over a length of time stays roughly constant.

So if too many block rewards are claimed in a given time frame, difficulty is increased to slow things down. If not enough are claimed then difficulty decreases to make it easier to get one.

raincole 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The reward of each block will only get smaller. But the power needs to mine a block is dynamic.

xigoi 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sure, but that’s not what miners care about. The power needed to get a given amount of money doubles whenever the reward is halved.

expedition32 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

A perpetual boom bust cycle? Sounds healthy.

igsomething 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It is a negative feedback loop, so yes, it makes systems stable.

AlOwain an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Regression to the mean. The alternative is no adjustment at all.

reenorap an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If bitcoin miners are losing $19k for every bitcoin they mine, why would they sell bitcoin to continue funding their mining operations. That just makes it even less profitable because they are driving down the price of their remaining bitcoin. It makes more sense to shut their rigs off completely and wait for the price to rise.

The funny thing about bitcoin is that the rate of bitcoin discovery doesn’t change when they shut off their rigs so it won’t change supply. It would actually make more sense to sell all their bitcoin, flood the market with coins to do the price, wait for large miners to collapse and then restart mining at hopefully lower prices.

klodolph an hour ago | parent [-]

> […] why would they sell bitcoin to continue funding their mining operations […]

There are usually some fixed costs involved and you need cash flow. Without cash flow, your business can shut down pretty damn fast. With cash flow, your business can stay around longer, maybe long enough for the economics to shift.

This sort of thing happens with oil. There are oil producers which sell at a loss. There was even a brief moment when the price of an oil barrel went negative, which meant that if you gave somebody a barrel of oil, you had to pay them for the privilege of taking that oil off your hands. Oil producers did not all shut down when that happened.

I am a little doubtful of the $19k figure anyway.

> It would actually make more sense to sell all their bitcoin, flood the market with coins to do the price, wait for large miners to collapse and then restart mining at hopefully lower prices.

This kind of market manipulation is not so straightforward.

KellyCriterion an hour ago | parent [-]

> There was even a brief moment when the price of an oil barrel went negative

More accurate: The price for an _option_ to buy/sell oil was negative, not the price of the barrell itself.

kristjansson 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

No, the price of a contract for future delivery to a specific location went negative just before the delivery date, at a time when there was almost no unoccupied oil storage nor transport capacity at said location.

In the circumstance you might sell your right to some oil for almost nothing rather than deal with the consequences of accepting it. You might even pay someone to take it off your hands.

Options is “right but not obligation”. Physically settled futures are an obligation at maturity.

duskdozer 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

How could the option price go below 0? Why couldn't someone just not exercise it in that case?

paoliniluis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's 2026 and there's still people that believe that proof-of-work makes sense as a consensus mechanism

kingleopold 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is just a lie. Coindesk is the worst media in the world.

They can't calculate correct price of mining because it's more complex and enerrgy costs are different in so many regions and inside the electiric producers etc. !

mathgeek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s not a lie, nor a damn lie. It’s statistics!

littlecranky67 an hour ago | parent [-]

Exactly: "The average production cost was sitting at $88,000 per bitcoin in mid-March". Emphasis on average. Just as in a free market, those miners with higher mining costs are priced out of the market. Or are pressured to become more efficient. Those that are below-average probably already are efficient.

helsinkiandrew 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When miners can't cover costs, they sell bitcoin to fund operations

Surely they should stop producing until its profitable again, or am I missing something?

Snoozus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If everyone stopped mining transactions couldn't go through anymore and the value of bitcoin would drop. If you're heavily invested in bitcoin that's bad. Also miners try to squeeze in their preferred transactions which they can't do when they're not mining. Finally the costs dont drop to zero when you turn the miners off, so the loss from mining might be less than the loss when not mining.

derangedHorse 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

He's not saying everyone, just the ones who are unprofitable. Not everyone mines bitcoin at the same cost. The ones who do have to stop can also profit from curtailment depending on the price of energy relative to hash profit.

illiac786 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn’t mining and transactions separate? Sure you need to have online participants, but they don’t have to actively mine, right?

arter45 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You can generate transactions but ultimately transactions are validated and written in the blockchain by miners. Mining is essentially a way to select voters based on their ability to solve puzzles, ensuring that if you are selected once you have no particular advantage next time. Without miners this whole system doesn’t work.

OJFord an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No, mining is exactly what makes transactions go through, computing the next result in chain, certifying that the transaction happened.

singpolyma3 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

What? That's not true. You don't need more than one CPU miner online for tx to go through. That's why there are difficulty adjustments.

nytesky 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

But as number of miners drop arent btc at risk of a 50% attack?

acidphreak2k 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When I was mining circa 2017 - 2021 (approx. 1 BTC/month and 25-30 ETH/month) and planning it all out, I prepared myself psychologically to operate for up to 2 years without any profits or selling. It was a hard pill to swallow and a huge risk; my costs were $8500/month in electrical and then another ~$2200 on a lease for the warehouse. When it dropped to $3,000/BTC a few months after I came online and stayed there for 6-8 months, I started wondering if I was the biggest dumbass in my county.

Thankfully, it all worked out in the end very well. I don't know how anyone would put in the effort/money to get a major crypto farm going and plan to just cash out every month to pay bills. What's the point? I always thought of it as a long-term bet on the price going way up, which it did.

VladVladikoff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like you could have made that same bet by just buying BTC with that money and doing twice as good.

acidphreak2k an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Up to a point; once it was over $12k or so, it was cheaper to mine them than to buy them. But yeah, I guess in retrospect I could have just dumped ~$450k into buying BTC when it was at $3,000 and made 3x what I ended up making, but there were other considerations for why I did it at the time. The mining was co-located with my cannabis grow/operations, and in many ways the mining was started secondary to that, even though the mining ended up being a little more profitable over the life of the facility

red_admiral 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The [bitcoin] mining was co-located with my cannabis grow/operations

HN quote of the day!

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I dunno, probably only if you don't count for human psychology. If they bought N BTC and tried to held them, would they still hold them when they double in value? What about increasing 10-fold?

Compared to doing some work to getting 1 BTC per month, which you can then individually decide what to do with, instead of a lump sum you could cash out at any moment.

OJFord an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I mined in 2014 with free electricity and that was true even then. That's with hindsight though, the mining reward is more predictable than that market price would increase (more than) equivalently.

csomar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a very low effort article. There are several places where the cost of electricity is roughly zero and state actors have interest in Bitcoin (Iran/Russia) or strong actors more powerful than the state (Libya/Venezuela). It's not surprising that this is good news for them as mining rigs for Bitcoin are much lighter to transport than the ones for oil.

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're missing that humans are often irrational.

They may be hoping it goes back up.

delusional 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you bought a bunch of hardware to mine bitcoins, then not using that hardware represents a 100% loss of value. You may lose money producing, but you would lose even more money not producing.

pessimizer an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You're not missing anything. As you can see if you read through the thread, they rely on bitcoin miners being heavily invested into bitcoin and bitcoin equipment, so those people will operate unprofitably to prop up their holdings. It's a moron's economy. A system that relies on externalities and corruption, and produces nothing of value. It's the art market with no art.

If bitcoin miners are smart enough to have anticipated this, and decided not to hold onto bitcoin and just let it drop; and also to have repurposed their equipment, sold it to bigger fools, or have just run it into the ground, none of these ideas make any sense.

Why would they, though? The real answer is that governments and monopolists are propping up bitcoin through simply handing tax money to bitcoin holders, and in the case of the latter (also government tit-suckers) leveraging themselves to pump up bitcoin markets when they are down. I'm sick of humoring this because it was once mildly interesting technically. It's a criminal scheme and everyone involved needs to go to prison. When I hear a politician say the word bitcoin, I'm going to do everything in my power to damage that politician.

suryajena 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't AI the new hot thing, why are the miners still going after Bitcoin, when they can probably just use the same infra for AI and make more money, stay profitable.

alex43578 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Totally different infra: bitcoin these days is all dedicated ASICs that have basically no other use, unlike GPUs.

vscode-rest 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hash mining asics don’t work well for AI

haakon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is true, but large miners also have beneficial electricity contracts and data center capacity, both suitable for AI workloads.

OJFord an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"don't work well for AI" is a hell of an understatement, the Application they are Specific to is literally just sha256(sha256(x)), what AI are you going to do with that?

GP probably didn't mean that hardware though, but rather the facility, electricity supply, cooling, etc.

mathgeek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Article covers that briefly.

suryajena 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The publicly traded miners have been adapting by diversifying into AI and high-performance computing, which offer more predictable revenue than mining bitcoin at a loss. Marathon Digital, Cipher Mining, and others have been building out data center capacity alongside their mining operations.

Yes, it does but lacks depth, the problem here is they are diversifying not pivoting and by virtue of game theory for each miner they stand to win on others exit, as the mining difficulty goes down, but this is creating a loss-loss situation.

expedition32 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a reason why countries invented a central bank who decides how much currency gets printed.

ece 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is there a SQQQ for BTC?

zdc1 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

SMST (Defiance Daily Target 2x Short MSTR ETF) could be a rough equivalent.

As the other poster mentioned though, many miners won't be using oil-based energy sources, so it does make one wonder about cause and effect. Maybe a dip in BTC would've done it regardless of oil?

isubkhankulov 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can take stable-coins, borrow bitcoin against them and sell them. (Fully or over-collateralized). Then buy back bitcoin if/when it drops.

If you’re wrong, you lose your stable-coins.

Let us know how it goes :)

martinflack 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The CME offers Bitcoin futures which can be shorted if you have a futures trading account with a broker.

bryceneal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you're being sincere, there are many easily accessible ways to short Bitcoin with leverage.

hazelnut 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is BITI which is the inverse of IBIT, the largest Bitcoin ETF afaik

testing22321 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe a basic question - do miners use solar?

Prices are dropping so fast it seems like the cheapest way to power mining rigs.

Also free grid electricity for three hours a day in Australia will be interesting.