A solo Bitcoin miner has independently solved a BTC block to earn a reward of three.275 BTC, roughly equal to $200,000.
On Aug. 29, Con Kolivas, a software program engineer and administrator of the solo mining pool ckpool, introduced on X that the miner had efficiently solved the 291st solo block in Bitcoin’s historical past. He congratulated the miner, stating:
“Congratulations to miner 36AisvWi1UiwLTeTZxLzindAkorqeUc3tT for fixing the 291st solo block on solo.ckpool.org! This hefty miner with 38PH would resolve a block on common as soon as each ~4 months.”
Blockchain information confirms that the miner efficiently mined block quantity 858,978 on the Bitcoin blockchain, which included 2,391 transactions.
Centralization issues
This achievement comes at a time when issues concerning the centralization of Bitcoin mining are rising inside the neighborhood.
Information from BTC.com reveals that 4 mining swimming pools—Foundry USA, AntPool, ViaBTC, and F2Pool—have produced about 80% of Bitcoin blocks over the previous three days, elevating alarms amongst neighborhood members.
Foundry USA and AntPool alone accounted for greater than 50% of the blocks mined by these swimming pools.
This excessive stage of centralization has raised issues about the way forward for Bitcoin. Jameson Lopp, co-founder of CasaHODL, weighed in on the difficulty, explaining that Bitcoin mining centralization is a battle between economies of scale and the decentralized nature of vitality sources. Nonetheless, he stays optimistic that decentralization will finally prevail.
Notably, the dangers have been exacerbated by the current halving occasion, which lower block mining rewards in half. This discount has pushed many smaller miners out of the market, leaving the trade dominated by publicly traded mining firms.
Bitfinex has warned that this focus of mining energy may result in potential censorship of transactions and elevated vulnerability to coordinated assaults or regulatory pressures. The agency acknowledged:
“This focus of mining energy amongst fewer entities may result in elevated centralization, which is opposite to Bitcoin’s ethos. Centralization dangers may imply the potential censorship of transactions and elevated vulnerability to coordinated assaults or regulatory pressures.”
