Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Drops 9.13%, Largest Since June 14

Bitcoin mining difficulty fell 9.13% to 134.82T from 148.36T on Nov. 14, according to Odaily, marking the largest decline in about five months. The reduction came as Bitcoin weakened and the network’s total computing power contracted.

Odaily reported: “Bitcoin mining difficulty was lowered 9.13% to 134.82T from 148.36T.” The Nov. 14 change removed 13.54T from the setting and followed a 10.09% drop recorded on June 14. Put another way, the network’s difficulty setting now stands at roughly 91% of the late-October level.

What does the 9.13% decline show?

The adjustment followed two consecutive increases: 5.92% on Oct. 16 and 5.54% on Oct. 29. Read together, the sequence shows mining conditions moving from higher network capacity toward lower capacity within less than a month.

The source does not quantify hash rate, miner count, revenue, electricity costs or Bitcoin’s price decline. It therefore cannot establish which miners stopped operating or whether the contraction was financially manageable.

For miners that remain active, lower difficulty means less computational work to solve a block at a given hash rate. That can partly ease operating pressure while Bitcoin is weaker, but it does not guarantee better margins. The report offers no cost or revenue data with which to test that proposition.

Mining conditions reversed sharply, while the source leaves the financial effect on miners unmeasured.

How does the two-week adjustment work?

The source explains: “Bitcoin mining difficulty is adjusted roughly every two weeks and changes according to shifts in the network’s total computing power, or hash rate.” When more computing power joins the network, difficulty rises; when computing power declines, difficulty falls.

The Nov. 14 change therefore reflects lower available capacity. Difficulty does not, by itself, measure miner profitability or the operating decisions of any pool. The interval places the latest review 16 days after the Oct. 29 increase, consistent with the stated roughly two-week cadence.

Although the schedule is approximate, the sequence shows a change in direction rather than a sustained decline established over several reviews: two increases preceded the reduction. One cut can ease the computational burden on active miners, but it does not establish how long lower capacity will last.

Difficulty follows network capacity, so the next scheduled adjustment will test whether the contraction persisted.

What is the sequence of recent changes?

The three most recent adjustments in the source make the reversal explicit. Together, they show how the direction changed within four weeks.

• Oct. 16: mining difficulty rose 5.92%.
• Oct. 29: mining difficulty rose 5.54%.
• Nov. 14: mining difficulty fell 9.13% to 134.82T from 148.36T.

The two increases came before the November reduction. The 9.13% cut was larger in percentage terms than either prior rise, making the reversal steeper than the immediately preceding adjustments. The comparison measures protocol difficulty, not miner revenue or Bitcoin’s price performance.

The recent data show expansion followed by a larger reversal, but only one downward adjustment confirms the change in direction.

What remains unknown?

Odaily’s summary attributes the move to Bitcoin’s weakness but gives no Bitcoin price, absolute hash rate, miner profitability or pool-level data. That omission matters for any profitability assessment. Difficulty is a network-wide measure, so it cannot by itself identify the source of the hash-rate decline or show whether remaining miners operate at higher margins.

No company, mining pool or agency appears in the source beyond Odaily’s attribution. The report also gives no exact date for the next review, only a roughly two-week interval. Any claim that mining has entered a durable recovery, or that a specific operator has responded, would go beyond the evidence.

Odaily provides no basis for choosing between those outcomes in advance. The roughly two-week window for the next review will provide the first test: a second decline would confirm continued contraction, while a rebound would show that the latest cut did not mark a sustained retreat.