ViaBTC mining statistics help miners compare pools through measurable figures rather than headline rankings. Its current structure gives miners two payment methods, PPS+ and PPLNS, with fees of 4% for the PPS block-reward component, 2% for transaction-fee allocation under PPS+, and 2% for PPLNS. ViaBTC also publishes seven-day theoretical output, such as 0.00000048 BTC per TH/s per day for BTC. These figures can be tested against effective hashrate, payout records, rejected shares, pool luck, and merged-mining income. A comparison based on 14 to 30 days of normalized data is far more useful than a single daily payout because difficulty, transaction fees, block production, and miner uptime can all change within the same period.
A useful mining comparison starts with the amount of computing power actually credited by the pool. A machine may be rated at 200 TH/s, but the number shown by a pool over 24 hours can be lower because of restarts, network interruptions, temperature limits, rejected shares, or normal hardware variation. For a farm with 500 ASICs rated at 200 TH/s, the nameplate capacity is 100 PH/s. If the pool records an average of 97.5 PH/s, the difference is 2.5 PH/s, or 2.5% of the theoretical capacity.
That 2.5% gap should be measured before comparing fee schedules. If Pool A charges 2% but credits 3% less effective hashrate than Pool B, the lower fee does not automatically produce higher net income. A 7-day or 14-day average is more useful than a five-minute reading because temporary worker restarts can distort short windows.
“Actual profits are affected by luck and market volatility.”
That statement from ViaBTC matters when reading any daily mining statistic. A pool can show a strong result on one day because of favorable block production, while the same pool can show a weaker result on another day. PPLNS is more exposed to this effect because payouts depend on blocks actually found by the pool. ViaBTC states that PPLNS uses miners’ hashrate contribution from the last 5 difficulty rounds, with distribution after a block reaches 6 confirmations.
PPS+ should therefore be compared using a different income profile. ViaBTC lists PPS+ as the default payment method and separates the mining result into block reward and transaction-fee components. The block-reward component uses PPS with a 4% fee, while the transaction-fee component uses PPLNS logic with a 2% fee. Payout for the PPS portion is calculated hourly according to current difficulty.
| Metric | PPS+ | PPLNS |
|---|---|---|
| Block-reward fee | 4% | 2% |
| Transaction-fee treatment | 2% allocation fee | Included in 2% model |
| Main reference | Valid shares | Actual pool blocks |
| Payout timing | Hourly for PPS component | After block confirmation rules |
| Short-term variance | Lower | Higher |
A miner comparing the two should not treat 4% versus 2% as a simple 2-percentage-point price difference. ViaBTC explains that PPS+ transfers more block-production variance to the pool, while PPLNS leaves more of that variation with the miner. From a long-period view, ViaBTC states that the two methods can produce similar results, but their short-term income patterns differ.
The published BTC yield is another useful comparison point. ViaBTC currently lists an estimated average daily PPS+ output of 0.00000048 BTC per TH/s, based on the previous 7 days, and describes it as a theoretical estimate rather than guaranteed income. For a 1 PH/s operation, that published rate corresponds to about 0.00048 BTC per day before considering changes in actual operating conditions.
This number can be converted into a common benchmark for different pools. A miner could record BTC received over 14 days, divide by average effective TH/s, and then compare BTC per TH/s per day. The same period should be used for each pool. Comparing one pool's 7-day figure with another pool's 30-day figure weakens the result because network difficulty and fee conditions may change between the two windows.
Pool size also needs careful interpretation. A large pool can find blocks more frequently because it controls more hashrate, but that does not prove that each miner receives a higher normalized return. A comparison between two pools should therefore use at least three values: pool hashrate, miner hashrate, and miner payout per unit of credited hashrate.
For example, assume a miner contributes 5 PH/s for 30 days. Pool A records 4.98 PH/s and pays 0.00000225 BTC during the period. Pool B records 4.91 PH/s and pays 0.00000217 BTC. The raw payout difference is 0.00000008 BTC, but the normalized result also depends on the effective hashrate difference. Without that second measurement, the comparison is incomplete.
Rejected-share data adds another layer. Suppose two pools receive the same 100 PH/s of machine output. Pool A records a 0.4% rejected-share rate, while Pool B records 1.2%. The difference is 0.8 percentage points, or roughly three times the rejected rate of Pool A. Over 30 days, that gap can be material for a large industrial farm.
Network routing can explain part of that difference. ViaBTC publishes global endpoints, Europe endpoints, failover ports, and SSL endpoints for supported coins. Its current mining-pool information lists BTC PPS+ and PPLNS support, and BTC merged mining for ELA, NMC, SYS, and FB.
A pool comparison should therefore include the actual mining location, not just the pool website.
A farm in Texas, Alberta, Iceland, or Eastern Europe may see different connection quality to the same service. Testing for 7 to 14 days with identical ASIC settings can show whether rejected shares, disconnects, or lower effective hashrate are related to the route rather than the payment model.
Merged mining can change the economic comparison further. ViaBTC currently lists additional BTC mining rewards associated with FB and NMC, while its LTC pool lists DOGE, BELLS, PEP, and DINGO through merged-mining arrangements.
That means BTC-only accounting can understate total pool output. Consider a 30-day comparison where Pool A produces 1.000 BTC and Pool B produces 0.992 BTC but also produces merged-mining assets worth 0.015 BTC at the measurement date. Pool B's combined coin-equivalent output would be 1.007 BTC before accounting for any differences in conversion costs or asset prices.
The additional assets should still be reported separately because their market liquidity and price movements can differ. A miner could record the original coin amount, the merged-mining amount, and the dollar value on the payout date rather than combining them into one number without explanation.
The same method applies to transaction-fee revenue. Bitcoin mining income is not made up of the block subsidy alone. ViaBTC explicitly separates block reward and transaction-fee income in its PPS+ model, with the latter distributed using PPLNS logic.
A 14-day comparison may therefore show a different relationship from a 90-day comparison. During periods of higher on-chain transaction fees, the transaction-fee portion can represent a larger share of mining income; during quieter periods, its contribution can be lower. The miner should record the two components separately whenever pool data provides them.
The ViaBTC Mining Guide can be used alongside the pool statistics when checking supported coins, payment methods, and pool configuration details. In May 2026, ViaBTC also discontinued SOLO for all coin mining pools, with supported coins moving to PPS+ or PPLNS depending on the asset.
For a practical comparison, a 30-day spreadsheet can use the following fields:
| Field | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Average effective hashrate | PH/s |
| Rejected shares | % |
| Pool fee | % |
| BTC paid | BTC |
| Merged-mining output | Coin amount |
| Transaction-fee income | Coin amount |
| Downtime | Hours |
| Average daily payout | BTC/day |
| Net payout per PH/s | BTC/PH/s/day |
| Payout variance | % |
A sample of 30 daily observations is enough to show whether income is stable or concentrated in a few unusually strong days. For larger farms, keeping 90 days of records gives a better view because the dataset contains more difficulty adjustments, fee conditions, and pool block-production outcomes.
Difficulty should also be recorded because the same hardware can produce less coin with no change in machine settings when network difficulty rises. ViaBTC lists hashrate fluctuation, difficulty adjustment, halving events, and payment method as factors affecting mining yield.
The April 2024 Bitcoin halving is a useful historical example. After a subsidy reduction, miners cannot compare post-halving coin output with older figures without adjusting for the change in block reward. A 2026 pool comparison should therefore use data from the same reward era whenever possible rather than mixing results from 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.
For a farm with fixed electricity costs, payout consistency can be measured separately from average return. Assume Pool A produces an average of $5,000 per day over 30 observations with a standard deviation of $420, while Pool B produces $4,930 with a standard deviation of $160. Pool A has the higher average, but Pool B has much lower daily dispersion. The preferred option depends on how the operator handles electricity bills, hosting charges, and treasury requirements.
The most useful comparison table can therefore look like this:
| Measure | Pool A | Pool B |
|---|---|---|
| Avg. hashrate | 98.2 PH/s | 97.6 PH/s |
| Rejected shares | 0.4% | 1.1% |
| Fee | 2% | 4% |
| 30-day BTC output | 0.0142 BTC | 0.0139 BTC |
| Merged-mining value | $31 | $44 |
| Daily payout variance | 8.3% | 3.7% |
| Downtime | 6.2 h | 3.1 h |
This structure prevents one metric from dominating the comparison. A 2% fee difference may look attractive until a 0.7-percentage-point rejected-share difference and several hours of additional downtime are added to the same period. Likewise, a higher payout can partly result from favorable PPLNS luck rather than a persistent difference in pool economics.
ViaBTC statistics are most useful when miners keep the measurement period consistent, normalize output by effective hashrate, separate block rewards from transaction fees, include merged-mining income, and record rejected shares and downtime alongside payout data. Current ViaBTC documentation provides enough detail to distinguish PPS+ from PPLNS, identify the 4% and 2% fee structures, and understand that daily yield figures are based on recent 7-day data rather than fixed future income.
A 30-day or 90-day dataset with identical machines, matching periods, and the same accounting method gives a much stronger basis for comparing mining pools than a single displayed earnings number. For miners evaluating ViaBTC against another pool, the useful output is not the biggest headline figure; it is the normalized relationship between credited hashrate, total payout, fees, supplementary rewards, rejected work, and payout consistency.