Bitcoin's geographic mining distribution has shifted slightly in recent months, with the United States losing ground to Russia while China's contribution declined, though the three largest mining nations remain dominant.
Hashrate Index reported in October that US Bitcoin mining hashrate fell to approximately 335 exahashes per second (EH/s) from 345 EH/s in July, reducing the country's network share to 35.6% from 36.7%. Russia's hashrate rose to 170 EH/s from 162 EH/s over the same period, increasing its share from 17.2% to 18.1%. China's estimated hashrate declined from roughly 115 EH/s to 110 EH/s.
The combined share of these three countries fell marginally to 65.4% from 66.2%, while the global network hashrate remained nearly flat at approximately 941 EH/s. The shift represents a modest change in geographic concentration, though it reflects a notable rebalancing between the two largest mining locations.
Methodology and Limitations
Hashrate Index's estimates use a weighted combination of mining pool data, ASIC trading flows, and firmware adoption trends. The October figures represent observations from the third quarter and are not a completed fourth-quarter result or live census of current mining operations.
The analysis notes important caveats about interpreting these figures. Geographic location does not establish beneficial ownership of mining equipment, pool control, or who selects transactions for blocks. A country's hashrate share describes where computing activity is estimated to occur, but spreading hardware across more countries does not demonstrate that more independent parties control block contents.
Underlying Factors
Some mining declines reflect companies shifting focus toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. Keel Infrastructure disclosed in August that it had completed decommissioning all its US Bitcoin mining operations in preparation for HPC construction. Core Scientific described in July an ongoing process of repurposing mining facilities for high-density colocation services.
The analysis cautions that hashrate declines alone do not establish what caused them or how durable such changes will be. Temporarily idled equipment may resume operations if conditions improve, while facilities undergoing reconstruction face different prospects. A nearly flat global network total coexists with the regional shifts, suggesting gains elsewhere offset US losses.
