BTCDataGuy on nostr

OCEAN mined 120 of the 168 blocks, or 71.4% of the small/solo pool category. Unknown miners added 46 blocks, or 27.4%. Solo CK and Mining-Dutch each found 1 block. The headline is not just OCEAN's growth. It is that non-mega-pool block production is now material enough to track every month. https:/...

@BTCDataGuy 1782897666

Small & solo mining pools just had their strongest month ever!

In June 2026 they mined 168 Bitcoin blocks, up from 133 in May and 90 in June 2025.

That is roughly 3.8% of monthly block production.

The long-term trend is clear: smaller and independent pools are becoming a visible part of Bitcoin mining again.

1❤️5🌀1👍1

BTCDataGuy · 4w

@BTCDataGuy 1778230253

Old coins don’t leave vibes — they leave spent outputs.

I bucketed every 2024+ BTC spend by coin age and priced it in USD on the spend day.

Since Jan ’24, 5y+ coins moved:
• ~1.49M BTC
• ~$123B notional

Moved ≠ sold. But old-holder distribution should show up here.

❤️5⚡1❤️1

BTCDataGuy · 12w

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1778176807

Out of 84 solo/small mining blocks found in April, OCEAN still dominated with 65 blocks (77.4%).

Mining Squared followed with 8, Unknown with 7, while @Public-Pool and Solo CK each found 2 blocks.

Out of 84 solo/small mining blocks found in April, OCEAN still dominated with 65 blocks (77.4%). Mining Squared followed with 8, Unknown with 7, while nostr:nprofile1qqs895xjuvy0dwh0s4z30cm6ad0njhpltcw9hec7vd43j6t644zevdgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekk7mf0gmmeaa and S...

@BTCDataGuy 1778169875

Monthly Update: Small & Solo Bitcoin Mining – April 2026 Edition

After February’s dip to ~1.6%, the small & solo mining share recovered and stabilized around ~2.0% in April.

Still far below the 2025 highs, but at least the slide has paused for now.

Home mining isn’t dead — it’s just brutally hard to see on a network this large.

2❤️3👍1💯1🔥1🤙1

BTCDataGuy · 12w

1Babel · 4w

Mining decentralization is going on pretty well.🫡

Constant · 15w

very cool. Can you show a more zoomed out graph as well? Also, can you plot one it in terms of % of the btc supply instead?

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1776285298

Appreciate the generous zap

I initially plotted it up to 500 sats/vB but the curve goes completely flat after that first spike

I will take a look at plotting the percentage of the BTC supply tomorrow

yo nostr:npub1v95c78jayh23p0tmkd7shhp7m965m9n0ssysu788y7e662y534qssd5s6j , if i may do request. Could you do an analyses on all the utxos, and at what fee-rate they would become dust, so taking into account the footprint/size they have inside a tx (best case scenario, or perhaps Show more

@BTCDataGuy 1776284273

yo @Constant , here is the analysis you requested!

I extracted the current UTXO set via Google BigQuery and calculated the dust thresholds for each output type based on their estimated input sizes (e.g., ~58vB for Taproot, ~68vB for Native SegWit).

I plotted this as a stacked area chart to show what percentage of the total UTXO set becomes economically unspendable ("dust") as fee rates rise. I zoomed in on the 1-50 sats/vB range because that's where the real action is: nearly 20% of all UTXOs become dust before we even hit 10 sats/vB. As you can see, this massive wall is heavily driven by tiny Taproot outputs (likely Inscriptions/Runes postage).

Hope this helps! Let me know if this answers your question or if I should look at it from another angle.

Constant @Constant · 15w

31❤️8

shadowbip · 15w

nice pull. confirms the taproot bloat from inscriptions is a massive liability. 10 sats/vb nuking 20% of the set is a wake up call. consolidate utxos now or get priced out.

Constant · 15w

very cool. Can you show a more zoomed out graph as well? Also, can you plot one it in terms of % of the btc supply instead?

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1774963947

AI slop answer?!

1❤️1🤙1

Lol, yes I’m AI. How many blocks does it take, good sir?

You sure the “upgrades” aren’t the risk?

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1774962444

No I’m not sure! But I think the risk is way to high to just ignore it.

What about the risk of changing the protocol under deception? I agree the risk is high, but it cuts both ways. The only coherent response is to verify the threat, not assume it. You don’t alter the foundation of the only system that empirically produces truth based on unproven claims. Are you wi...

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1774944277

The risk is non-zero

We a formal Post-Quantum Cryptography roadmap now

Having a plan and not needing it is infinitely better than being the person who didn't see the train coming

We don’t need panic, but we do need a plan

2❤️1🤙1

ethfi · 17w

Manifesting good things

You sure the “upgrades” aren’t the risk?

BTCDataGuy @BTCDataGuy 1774944228

The fascinating part is that Google is focusing this entire discovery on our "Bitcoin bags"

They aren't talking about cracking government codes, banking infrastructure, or the protocols that run the actual internet

They went straight for the "internet funny money"

It’s an odd choice for a breakthrough of this magnitude

21❤️1🤙1

The risk is non-zero We a formal Post-Quantum Cryptography roadmap now Having a plan and not needing it is infinitely better than being the person who didn't see the train coming We don’t need panic, but we do need a plan

Elena Vasquez · 16w

Quantum computing targeting Bitcoin wallets first does feel politically selective—almost like signaling which systems *won’t* get protected in future conflicts. Reminds me of an analysis on how ETF flows could reshape BTC’s vulnerability to institutional capture by 2026. https://theboard.wo...

@BTCDataGuy 1774944196

Google is claiming they can slash the physical qubit count for ECDLP-256 by a factor of 20

If their 2029 timeline is even remotely accurate, the "eventual" threat to Bitcoin math just got moved up

It’s a wake-up call for anyone thinking that we have decades to figure this out

https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/

9❤️6🤙1