ViaBTC mining statistics let miners compare expected computing output with pool-recorded hashrate, accepted shares, worker uptime, difficulty, block production, pool luck, and credited revenue. As of September 2026, ViaBTC’s BTC statistics page reports about 98.79 EH/s of pool hashrate, 0.039 USD/T daily earnings, 98.44% three-day luck, and a 0.03% orphan rate. Those figures provide a practical reference for checking whether a farm is operating normally or whether lower daily income comes from machine performance, network conditions, block timing, or the selected payout method.
For miners building a regular reporting process, the ViaBTC Mining Guide can be read alongside the statistics page rather than treating a daily account balance as the only measure. A good review starts with worker status and pool-side hashrate, then checks shares and revenue before moving to difficulty, pool luck, block records, and payout timing.
A miner rated at 200 TH/s can still show a different pool-side average. The local ASIC dashboard measures its own hash output, while the pool records work through submitted shares over time. If a 200 TH/s machine averages 175 TH/s at the pool for several hours, the 12.5% gap deserves attention, especially when nearby machines remain close to their normal range.
Short periods need a wider sample. A few minutes of pool-side hashrate can move well above or below the hardware rating because share-based estimates are statistical. A 24-hour average gives a cleaner comparison, while 7-day figures are better for checking whether an apparent 5% or 10% drop is a recurring operating issue.
The worker page helps narrow that difference to individual machines. If a farm has 100 ASICs and total hashrate falls by 4%, operators can check whether four or five workers show repeated interruptions instead of treating the whole site as one unit.
A 4% farm-level decline with 1% of workers offline points to a different problem from a 4% decline spread across nearly every machine.
Share statistics add another layer because mining equipment can remain powered on while some submitted work is rejected or arrives too late. A rising rejected-share rate should be compared with network latency, miner logs, connection stability, and worker restarts rather than viewed as a standalone number.
This is also where time-based comparisons help. Suppose accepted shares remain stable for 6 hours, but effective hashrate is 7% below the machine fleet's normal weekly average. The operator can then compare worker uptime with the same 6-hour window instead of relying on a daily total that may hide a short outage.
Revenue should be read after hashrate and share quality have been checked. ViaBTC states that mining yield is affected by hashrate changes, difficulty adjustments, halving events, and payment method, so a lower daily amount does not automatically indicate weaker hardware.
Payment method changes how the numbers should be interpreted. ViaBTC currently lists PPS+ and PPLNS, with PPS+ as the default. Under the published BTC schedule, the PPS block-reward component carries a 4% fee, while transaction-fee distribution uses a 2% fee; PPLNS uses a 2% fee.
Under PPS+, ViaBTC calculates the block-reward portion from valid shares and the current mining difficulty, with settlement for that portion made hourly. Under the published PPLNS rules, allocation is based on the user's hashrate share across the last 5 difficulty rounds when a block reaches 6 confirmations.
That difference changes the way daily numbers should be reviewed. A PPS+ miner with steady hashrate may see a smoother result, while a PPLNS miner can see larger day-to-day changes because actual block production affects the amount allocated.
A 15% one-day decline under PPLNS should therefore be checked against recent pool blocks before hardware is inspected. If hashrate stayed within 2% of its 30-day average and worker uptime was normal, block timing and pool luck deserve more attention than the ASIC settings.
ViaBTC's current BTC statistics page gives several useful reference figures at once: around 98.79 EH/s of pool hashrate, 98.44% 3-day luck, 91.05% 7-day luck, 92.02% 30-day luck, and 99.73% total luck at the time of the September 2026 page snapshot. The same page reports 52,780 total blocks and 19 orphan blocks, producing an orphan rate of 0.03%.
Those time windows are useful because luck can look very different over 3 days and 30 days. A 91.05% 7-day reading alongside 92.02% over 30 days suggests that the recent period can run below the longer sample without proving that the pool is permanently underperforming. The longer period gives more context.
Block records can also be read one by one. The current ViaBTC page shows recent BTC block rewards around 3.13 to 3.17 BTC in the listed entries, while individual block luck figures vary sharply; one listed block shows 30.46% luck and another shows 2,554.37%.
That spread shows why one block is not a useful basis for judging a month's mining result. A 2,554.37% luck reading describes a very short run that ended far faster than its statistical expectation, while a 30.46% result took much longer than the earlier example. Looking at a series of blocks reduces the chance of treating an unusual interval as a normal daily rate.
Network difficulty should be checked whenever revenue falls while hashrate stays steady. ViaBTC's September 2026 public BTC page lists network hashrate around 938.03 EH/s, current difficulty near 125.81 T, and an estimated next difficulty of 125.01 T, shown as a 0.63% decrease at the time of capture.
The same 1 PH/s farm can therefore produce a different coin amount across two periods even when the machines remain at roughly 1 PH/s. If difficulty rises, each unit of hashrate represents a smaller share of the network's total work, while a lower difficulty can improve expected coin output per unit of hashrate.
The 2026 halving cycle also matters when comparing older records with current ones. ViaBTC states that halving reduces the block reward and therefore affects mining yield. A year-to-year comparison should not treat a 2025 daily BTC result and a 2026 daily BTC result as directly equivalent without checking reward conditions and network difficulty.
Transaction fees create another source of difference. PPS+ includes a block-reward component and a transaction-fee component, with the latter allocated through a PPLNS-based calculation according to ViaBTC's current documentation. Two days with identical 500 TH/s average hashrate can therefore have different BTC-denominated results when transaction-fee conditions differ.
For monthly reporting, a compact table is more useful than one headline number:
| Metric | What to compare | Useful sample |
|---|---|---|
| Worker status | Online rate and interruptions | 24 hours |
| Effective hashrate | Pool average vs rated output | 7 days |
| Shares | Accepted and rejected work | 24 hours |
| Revenue | Daily amount and 7-day average | 7 days |
| Difficulty | Current vs prior period | 14 days |
| Pool luck | Short and longer windows | 7/30 days |
| Blocks | Count, reward, runtime, status | 30 days |
| Payouts | Credited amount vs paid amount | Monthly |
A 30-day record can show patterns that a daily chart misses. For example, three separate worker outages lasting 40 minutes each may barely affect a monthly average visually, yet their timestamps can match maintenance work, electrical resets, or network interruptions.
Payout records provide the final accounting check. ViaBTC currently supports auto-withdrawal modes based on account balance or daily earnings, and its June 2026 documentation explains that earnings below the minimum payout threshold continue accumulating until the threshold is reached.
That distinction matters when an operator sees mining income in the account but a lower amount in the wallet. A payout gap does not necessarily mean missing mining revenue; it may reflect the payout threshold, the selected withdrawal mode, or earnings that were settled on the current day and therefore are not included in the amount being paid under the chosen rule.
A practical review can therefore follow one sequence: check whether workers stayed online, compare pool hashrate with the expected fleet output, review share acceptance, compare revenue with the selected PPS+ or PPLNS method, then check difficulty, pool luck, blocks, and payout records. Using the same sequence every day makes a 3% deviation easier to compare with a 15% deviation and helps separate equipment issues from changes in mining conditions.
For a large operation, the most useful historical sample is not necessarily the largest one. A 24-hour view is suitable for outage checks, 7 days can expose repeated worker instability, and 30 days gives a better reference for revenue and pool performance. A monthly report that includes at least one percentage or dated network metric makes changes easier to verify against the underlying operating data.