Cointime

Download App
iOS & Android

Search Write Sign up Sign in Why Bitcoin Miners Will Keep Mining

From CoinShares Research Blog by Christopher Bendiksen

(republished version of a March 2020 article)

  • Bitcoin prices have dropped sharply, cutting mining revenues in half even before the actual incoming halving
  • This situation will undoubtedly bring the ‘mining death spiral’ argument back to the forefront of the bitcoin media cycle
  • ‘Mining death spirals’ do not actually happen in real life — they are highly theoretical edge cases without any historical real-world precedent
  • Mining cost is largely a function of the difficulty, this is a dynamic metric determined by the protocol itself and it can adjust both up and down to keep block times at 10 minutes on average
  • This will be challenging for high-cost miners and many will not survive
  • If prices do not recover the hashrate will fall — and when the halving hits it will fall again — this is not a problem for Bitcoin, nor is it unprecedented

Glossary

Bitcoin — The Bitcoin protocol, network and monetary system

bitcoin — The bitcoin monetary unit

Hashrate — The total current number of hashes performed per second by the mining network

Mining Difficulty — An automatically adjustable limit which regulates the cost of mining

View more of our latest insights here.

For the Miners, The Recent Price Move is Effectively Equivalent to the Halving

Since its February 2020 peak of around $10,500, the bitcoin price, and with it, the mining reward, has fallen by more than half. And in a way, for all of those who are worried about the halving this is a perfect prelude because the end effect on miners is the exact same. Hence, the hashrate dynamics we’re likely to see in the upcoming weeks will be an excellent parallel to those we might also see after the halving in May.

So what are we likely to see? Reductions in hashrate. And that’s totally fine.

Here’s the how and why:

The Mining Difficulty Adjustment Keeps Bitcoin Block Frequency Steady, No Matter the Amount of Total Network Hashrate

Miners rely on the mining reward to cover their ongoing electricity costs. The mining reward is made up of two parts: 1) Transaction fees; and 2) Newly created bitcoins. Miners have costs denominated in their local currency, so the purchasing power of their bitcoin income is dependent on the exchange rate between bitcoin and their local currency.

When the bitcoin price falls, the miners’ bitcoin income offers less purchasing power to cover ongoing electricity costs. As a result, the miners with the highest production cost will no longer be profitable and will be forced to stop mining (more on these dynamics here, reading it will make this article a lot easier to fully grasp). This is almost exactly analogous to normal commodity production cost curves.

The overall network hashrate will then drop, but this is where the comparisons to normal commodity production stops. For example, iron production costs are the same no matter the price of iron, whereas the production cost of bitcoin is variable and dynamic (see accompanying graphic for an idealised illustration).

Every 2016 blocks (approximately every 14 days), the Bitcoin protocol adjusts the difficulty to reflect the average hashrate of that period. The rule is simple: Bitcoin blocks should take exactly 10 minutes on average to create. If the 2016 blocks came every 9 minutes on average instead of every 10 minutes, the mining difficulty is increased. If blocks came every 11th minute on average the difficulty is reduced.

Therefore: No matter how little or how much hashrate the combined mining network produces, the Bitcoin protocol will automatically adjust the difficulty such that new blocks are found every 10 minutes on average.

Source: CoinShares Research

Remembering that new bitcoins are created every block, the difficulty adjustment ensures that no amount of added hashrate could make bitcoins be produced any faster than prescribed. The opposite is also true.

An important net effect of this, is that the cost of mining always tends towards the market price of bitcoin. If the price of bitcoin increases, more hashpower will be brought online. This raises the difficulty until the cost of mining again approaches the price. If the price of bitcoin decreases, some hashpower will be removed from the network. This lowers the difficulty until the cost of mining again approaches the price.

Unless the Price Recovers Sharply, the Hashrate Will Fall, Then the Difficulty

The bitcoin price is now down more than 50% from its 2020 highs. This means that miners’ income has lost more than 50% of its purchasing power. The highest cost producers will now be unprofitable and some will even be cashflow negative. When miners turn cashflow negative they will turn off their gear and hashrate will fall.

This will cause blocks to be produced more slowly than before. In turn, this means that the next time the difficulty is adjusted, it will be lowered, such that the remaining hashrate finds blocks at the same frequency as before.

Whichever miners are able to remain cashflow positive during this transition period will end up having their cost of mining reduced. After the difficulty adjusts downwards, a new balance is found where the remaining miners find a higher percentage of blocks than they used to (aka, their bitcoin income is increased, making up for the loss of reduced prices per bitcoin sold).

Bitcoin-denominated income therefore flows from inefficient high-cost producers to efficient low-cost producers, Bitcoin as a system will draw less power than it did before, and the average power it draws will be lower cost (aka, less useful for society) than the average power it drew before.

The main overall effect is that the cost of writing (and rewriting) the chain decreases. But no one really knows how much chain-writing cost is enough, and that topic is way outside of the realm of what we can fit in this article (if you’re interested we can recommend starting herehere and here).

‘Mining Death Spirals’ Exist Only in Theory, not in Practice

In price environments like these you will hear countless uninformed pundits peddle the ‘mining death spiral’ concern. The weak form of the argument generally goes like this:

If bitcoin prices fall, mining will become unprofitable causing the hashrate to drop. This will grind the network to a halt since no new blocks are mined. This in turn will cause price to drop further causing more miners to shut down until no one is left mining and the price hits zero.

From reading this article you’ll already understand why that form of the argument is absolute nonsense (and also the reason we’ve never observed it in practice even though we’ve had two halvings already and the bitcoin price has fallen by more than 50% on several occasions): the mining difficulty adjustment.

However, there is an edge case in which a mining death spiral could conceivably happen. The steel man form of the argument goes like this:

If,

  1. At the worst possible time (that is, exactly after a difficulty adjustment), the price of bitcoin drops by an extreme amount (let’s call it 99%), and;
  2. Very few or none of the miners believe it will ever come back up, and;
  3. Miners are physically able to almost immediately shut most (let’s call this 99% as well) mining gear off.

The result would be that the time it would take to find 2016 blocks for the next difficulty adjustment would be 100 times longer than normal (that is, 200 weeks, or almost 4 years). Moreover, the maximum difficulty adjustment is 4x in each direction, so the next difficulty adjustment would take another 50 weeks, then another 12.5 weeks, then another 4 until block times were normalised.

In such a scenario you can imagine that the price would falter (although hasn’t it already?) and that the future of the system could be called into question.

In real life though, markets don’t move like that. And if they did, a permanent 99% (or whatever) price drop would likely be a signal that something else was fundamentally wrong with the system itself.

On top of that there are operational concerns on the part of miners that prevent shutdowns on such rapid timelines. Powering down a several hundred megawatt mine is not a matter of pulling a socket plug — you would risk severely damaging the local grid. Moreover, many miners have offtake agreements that mandate that they continue their draw for as long as they are able to pay their contracted bills.

The point is: even when bitcoin prices significantly fall (which happens pretty much every year) or the mining reward is halved (which happens at predetermined time intervals), the physical and operational realities of the mining network are such that drawdowns in hashrate take time. In practice, hashrate reductions are therefore always smoothly caught by the dynamic difficulty adjustment and block frequencies never get anywhere near ‘crisis levels’ (whatever that even means).

The Network Was Designed to Handle These Exact Situations

If you’re worried that price drops or halvings will have long-term adverse effects on the operational workings of Bitcoin consider the following: This is the umpteenth time the price of bitcoin has seen a dramatic pullback — it happens pretty much every year at some point or another — and this is the third halving of the block reward.

Because of the design choices we’ve explained above the mining network has never failed to produce blocks. The difficulty has reset downwards many times — sometimes dramatically as the result of a pullback in price (the November/December 2018 is an excellent example to study), but never has the network ground to a halt or even come anywhere close to it.

Source: CoinShares Research

Bitcoin as a monetary system is extremely robust. No matter where the price goes, block generation times are coldly and unemotionally kept at their preset levels by computers, not humans. There is no price level that could cause Bitcoin’s emission rate to increase. When the dust settles on the current financial crisis, the Bitcoin monetary system will have created exactly as many bitcoins as originally intended.

The same is not true of its government competitors.

Comments

All Comments

Recommended for you

  • A Total of 37,212.18 DMD Permanently Burned Over the Past 7 Days

    July 9, 2026 — According to the latest on-chain data released by DMDAO, a total of 37,212.18 DMD has been permanently burned over the past seven calendar days through the protocol's predefined trading and wealth management burn mechanisms.

  • Whale Transfers 1,133 BTC to Coinbase Prime, Valued at $71.48 Million

    According to Onchain Lens monitoring, a whale transferred 1,133 BTC from Coinbase to Coinbase Prime through an intermediary wallet, valued at $71.48 million.

  • U.S. AI Chip Stocks Decline Before Market Open, Intel Falls Over 3%

    On July 7, U.S. AI chip stocks experienced widespread declines before the market opened. Intel dropped over 3%, while AMD, Qualcomm, and NXP fell more than 2%. TSMC, Broadcom, and Tesla decreased by over 1%, and NVIDIA declined by 0.7%.

  • China's Central Bank Increases Gold Reserves for the 20th Consecutive Month

    As of the end of June, China's gold reserves stood at 75.44 million ounces (approximately 2,346.446 tons), an increase of 480,000 ounces (about 14.93 tons) from the end of May, which reported 74.96 million ounces (approximately 2,331.52 tons). This marks the 20th consecutive month of gold accumulation.

  • China's Foreign Exchange Reserves in June at $341.6262 Billion

    On July 7, China's foreign exchange reserves for June stood at $341.6262 billion, a decrease of $26 billion from the end of May, representing a decline of 0.75%, with expectations set at $343.2 billion.

  • U.S. Storage Stocks Drop Pre-Market, SanDisk and Micron Down Over 4%

    On July 7, U.S. storage concept stocks collectively fell in pre-market trading. Western Digital dropped over 5%, SanDisk and Micron Technology fell over 4%, Seagate Technology declined over 3%, Rambus fell over 2%, and SMI fell over 1%.

  • U.S. Stocks in Optical Communication Sector Drop Pre-Market

    On July 7, stocks in the optical communication sector of the U.S. market collectively fell pre-market. Astera Labs dropped over 4%, while Marvell Technology, Credo Technology, and AXT Inc. fell more than 3%. Tower Semiconductor, MaxLinear, Corning, Applied Optoelectronics, GlobalFoundries, Lumentum, and Qorvo all declined by more than 2%. Coherent, Nokia, Amphenol, and Broadcom dropped over 1%.

  • Pre-market Decline in U.S. Storage Stocks

    In pre-market trading, U.S. storage concept stocks experienced a widespread decline, with Micron Technology falling by 4.8%, SanDisk dropping over 4%, Corning down more than 2%, and Intel decreasing by over 3%.

  • Two Departments: Support for Reinsurance Institutions to Increase Capital and Issue Supplementary Capital Tools

    On July 7, the National Financial Supervision and Administration Bureau and the Shanghai Municipal Government released several measures to accelerate the construction of the Shanghai International Reinsurance Center. Among these measures, they proposed to enhance the quality and efficiency of the reinsurance industry, support reinsurance institutions in increasing capital and expanding shares, and issuing supplementary capital tools to improve the capacity for internal capital accumulation and external capital supplementation, thereby strengthening the reinsurance industry's capabilities. The initiative aims to guide the insurance industry to focus on major national projects, strategic emerging industries, and livelihood security, consolidating insurance and reinsurance underwriting capabilities to enhance risk protection levels. It also supports reinsurance institutions in leveraging their professional technical advantages to assist the insurance industry in reducing risk.

  • Sources: Saudi Arabia Plans to Expand Oil Pipeline to Red Sea, Increasing Capacity by 2 Million Barrels Daily to Bypass Strait of Hormuz

    On July 7, five informed sources revealed that Saudi Arabia is considering expanding the crude oil pipeline capacity to its western coast on the Red Sea, allowing Saudi Arabia and its neighbors to transport more oil without passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This east-west pipeline, built in the early 1980s, has gained strategic importance since the outbreak of the Iran war in February and the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline can deliver up to 7 million barrels of crude oil per day to the Red Sea port. The CEO of Saudi Aramco stated in May that approximately 2 million barrels are supplied to west coast refineries, while about 5 million barrels are for export. Sources indicate that Saudi Arabia is in preliminary discussions with some neighboring countries regarding the pipeline expansion, aiming to add about 2 million barrels of pipeline capacity per day. It remains unclear whether Aramco's planned expansion involves upgrading existing infrastructure or constructing new pipelines. One source mentioned that the expansion plan also includes a smaller refined oil pipeline. Two sources indicated that the expansion scale could range from 1 million to 2 million barrels per day, with refined oil also being considered. Another source stated that the project would take several years and cost billions of dollars, requiring adjustments to Saudi crude pricing mechanisms.