10th February 2013 weekly pool and network statistics

Welcome, miners.

The network hashrate continues to increase, as does the unknown proportion of the network. Keep in mind that the pie charts are based on data published by the pools, so very few known pools are included in "unknown" - approximately 1000 Ghps at most. That means ~ 3000 Ghps are completely unknown, and are now the largest source of hashing in the network. I'd be interested to find out who they might be. Perhaps some Chinese pools of which I haven't yet heard? Or is ASICMiner already hashing away?

The increasing in hashrate provided by Jeff Garzik's Avalon miner on p2Pool is obvious in chart 4, while not so clear on Slush's pool - which is still being consistently pool hopped. DeepBit doesn't seem to be pool hopped at all.

I forgot to welcome btc.p2pcoins, who were included in the stats for the first time last week. This week we see the return of Coinotron, who have seen some massive and quite interesting swings in hashrate over the last few weeks.


As usual, please post comments if there's anything you don't understand, with which you disagree, or just think is wrong.


The charts

Table: Table of all pools with public data and their various statistics averaged for the last seven days - for smaller pools the average may be more or less than seven days, depending on number of blocks solved for the week. Network hashrate and 50BTC.com hashrate are estimates, the upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds are included.
Figure 1: Pie chart of the percentage of network blocks hashrate by pool. "Unknown" combines those pools for which I can't scrape statistics, solominers and private pools. The percentage of network hashrate will only be approximate since the exact network hashrate is unknown.

Figure 2: Chart of network hashrate, hashrate of the largest mining pool, combined hashrates of the three largest mining pools, and a line representing 50% of the network hashrate. Handy if you're worried about 51% attacks. The upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds for the network hashrate are in between the shaded areas.

Figure 3: Chart of chronology of pool hashrates, averaged per week.

Figure 4: Chart of average hashrates per pool per round for the week, and per 144 rounds for the network. The upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds for the network hashrate are in between the shaded areas.

Figure 5: Chart of chronology of negative binomial CDF probability of shares submitted and blocks produced for the week.

Figure 6: Chart of chronology of round length divided by difficulty, averaged per week.

Figure 7: Chart of hashrate vs round length for hoppable pools (the larger the hashrate increase at the start of a round, the larger the loss to strategic miners).

Figure 8: Chart of fulltime miner earnings loss at a proportional pool caused by pool hoppers, expressed as expected PPS earnings for fulltime miners. Currently only for Bitlc and Deepbit. Only valid if strategic pool hopping is actually occurring (see figure 7). 

Thanks to blockexplorer.com and blockchain.info for use of their network statistics.

Donations help give me the time to analyse bitcoin mining related issues and post the results.

If you enjoy my posts or if I've saved you some coins or helped you earn more, please consider a small bitcoin donation:

12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r