Bitcoin mining activity has shifted modestly between the United States and Russia, while the overall geographic concentration of the network has barely changed. Estimates published by Luxor Technology’s Hashrate Index show the US losing some share and Russia gaining it, but the two countries remain part of the same dominant three-country group alongside China.
US share declines while Russia moves higher
According to CryptoSlate, Hashrate Index’s October 5 estimates put US mining hashrate at about 335 exahashes per second (EH/s), down from 345 EH/s in the previous comparison. Russia’s estimated hashrate rose from 162 EH/s to 170 EH/s over the same period.
The US share of the estimated Bitcoin network fell from 36.7% to 35.6%. Russia’s share increased from 17.2% to 18.1%. China’s estimated mining activity also declined, from approximately 115 EH/s to 110 EH/s.
Together, the US, Russia and China accounted for an estimated 65.4% of global hashrate, compared with 66.2% in the prior comparison. That represents a decline of about 0.8 percentage points in the combined share, while leaving the same three countries as the leading locations for Bitcoin mining.
Hashrate is a measure of the computing power being used to process Bitcoin mining work. The network estimate cited by Hashrate Index is based on a 30-day simple moving average, rather than a real-time count of machines operating at a particular moment. The global estimate changed only slightly, from about 940 EH/s to 941 EH/s.
The report is described as a fourth-quarter update, but its figures cover observations from the preceding third quarter. They should not be read as a completed fourth-quarter result or as a live census of mining equipment on October 6.
What the concentration figures do—and do not—show
The latest numbers point to a change in the balance between the two largest estimated mining locations, rather than a major reshaping of Bitcoin’s geographic distribution. A lower US share reduces the portion attributed to the United States, while Russia’s larger share increases its contribution. However, the combined position of the top three countries remains broadly stable.
Hashrate Index says its methodology combines pool information with ASIC trading flows and firmware adoption trends. Such estimates can provide an indication of where mining activity is located, but they are not a direct inventory of every operating machine. Other mining-map methodologies have also warned that pool samples may be unrepresentative and that virtual private networks or proxies can complicate location estimates.
The comparison does not provide a confidence range showing whether the roughly 0.8-point decline in the top-three share is statistically significant. The country percentages are estimates, and rounded hashrate figures can produce small differences when recalculated.
A geographic shift also does not prove that equipment moved from the US to Russia. Mining machines in one country may stop operating while separate machines elsewhere come online. The data establish changes in estimated activity by location, not the cause of those changes or a physical transfer of hardware.
Ownership and pool control remain separate questions
Where mining activity takes place is not the same as who owns the equipment or who helps decide which transactions are included in Bitcoin blocks. A mining pool coordinates work from many miners and distributes rewards, but the pool is not automatically the beneficial owner of every machine contributing computing power.
This distinction matters for assessing decentralization. More countries hosting mining equipment could indicate wider geographic distribution, yet that alone would not demonstrate that more independent entities control the hardware or choose block contents.
In traditional pooled-mining arrangements, miners provide hashing work while the pool coordinates tasks and, in some configurations, supplies the information needed to construct block headers without giving individual miners the ability to inspect or add transactions. Stratum V2 includes an option that can allow miners to select transaction sets, but the figures in this update do not show how widely that capability is being used.
A fuller assessment would therefore require ownership information, current pool participation data and evidence about who selects block templates. The quarterly country estimates establish neither broader ownership diversity nor a change in pool concentration.
Industry changes add context to the US decline
Luxor has linked some regional mining declines to miners shifting toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. Company disclosures illustrate that such changes can occur, although they do not explain the entire country-level movement.
Keel Infrastructure said in an August 10 operational disclosure that it had completed the decommissioning of all its US Bitcoin mining operations ahead of high-performance-computing construction. Core Scientific’s July 28 results, by contrast, described an ongoing effort to repurpose remaining mining facilities for high-density colocation services as conditions allow. That indicates a different status from a completed exit.
Equipment can also be temporarily idled and later return to service if operating conditions change. A facility under reconstruction or committed to another workload may face a different path back into mining. As a result, a decline in estimated hashrate alone cannot show whether capacity has been permanently removed, temporarily curtailed or converted to another use.
For now, the data show a modest shift in geographic exposure inside a still-concentrated Bitcoin mining network. Determining whether decentralization has genuinely improved will require repeated observations, clearer ownership information and evidence about pool coordination and transaction selection.
Current market picture
Moneyiar market data at 10:44 a.m. on October 7, 2026, show Bitcoin at $83,638.39, down 2.91% over 24 hours and 0.27% over seven days. Bitcoin is ranked No. 1 by market capitalization.
The same Moneyiar data show Compound at $23.31, down 4.93% in 24 hours and 7.85% over seven days; RedStone at $0.1494, down 10.11% and 10.77%, respectively; and Ontology at $0.05790, down 5.03% over 24 hours and 0.33% over seven days.
