In the quiet hours after the fourth halving, I watched the mempool of a single mining pool swallow 47% of all new Bitcoin blocks. The network continued to produce blocks every 10 minutes, but the silence between those blocks told a different story — one of capital concentration, not consensus. The hash rate was still astronomical, but the distribution had become a whisper. I had seen this pattern before, in 2017 when I audited the Parity Wallet and discovered a vulnerability that could have drained $300 million. Back then, I learned that code alone does not ensure trust. Now, I see that hash power alone does not ensure decentralization.
This is not a technical failure. Bitcoin’s protocol remains mathematically elegant. But the economic reality after the fourth halving is that miner revenue has collapsed by 50% overnight, forcing smaller miners to sell their hardware or join larger pools. The result is a consolidation of mining power into three dominant pools — F2Pool, AntPool, and ViaBTC — which now control over 70% of the total hash rate. The narrative of “decentralized consensus” is becoming a myth maintained by those who profit from it.
Context: The Fourth Halving and the Myth of Immutable Distribution
The fourth halving occurred in April 2024, reducing the block subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. At the same time, transaction fees were not enough to compensate for the loss. Data from CoinMetrics shows that the average fee per block in the months after the halving ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 BTC, far below the subsidy. Miners who relied on high-margin operations faced bankruptcy. The cost of electricity, hardware, and cooling became prohibitive. The only way to survive was to join a larger pool that offered steady payouts and lower variance.
This is not a new phenomenon. In 2020, after the third halving, we saw a similar trend, but the scale was smaller. Now, with institutional capital flowing into Bitcoin through ETFs, the pressure on miners has intensified. Institutions prefer to deal with large, compliant pools, further centralizing the infrastructure. The result is a network where the “decentralization” of nodes is celebrated, but the real power — the ability to reorder transactions, censor blocks, or even execute a 51% attack — is concentrated in a few hands.
Core: The Technical Analysis of Hash Power Concentration — A Data-Driven Vigil
Let me walk you through the numbers. I pulled data from BTC.com and Blockchain.com for the six months after the halving. The top three pools consistently produced over 50% of blocks, with the largest pool often exceeding 30% alone. In a system designed to be trustless, this is a dangerous concentration. If the three pools collude, they could theoretically double-spend or censor transactions. The network’s security relies on the assumption that no single entity controls more than 50% of the hash rate. We are dangerously close to that threshold.
Based on my experience auditing smart contracts and governance systems, I can tell you that this is not a theoretical risk. In 2020, while working on the MakerDAO governance framework, I saw how a small group of rational actors could coordinate to pass proposals that served their interests. The same principle applies here. The pools are not malicious, but they are profit-driven. If a government or large institution pressures them to censor certain transactions, they may comply. The code does not enforce decentralization; it only enables it. The human element remains the weakest link.
Tracing the code back to the conscience, I recall the 2022 crash and the collapse of FTX. I retreated to Hanoi and wrote the “Ho Chi Minh Trust Manifesto,” arguing that true decentralization requires psychological resilience and community verification. Today, that lesson is more urgent than ever. The Bitcoin network is still secure, but its soul is being eroded by economic forces that favor scale over resilience.
Consider the geography of mining. The three dominant pools are all based in China, with some operations in North America and Europe. This geographic concentration creates a single point of failure. If the Chinese government decides to block mining, as it did in 2021, the network’s hash rate could drop by 50% overnight. The network would recover, but the disruption would be severe. And the narrative of “decentralized” Bitcoin would be shattered.
Contrarian: The Case for Pragmatic Acceptance — And Why It Fails
I have heard the counterarguments. Some say that mining pools are just coordinators — they don’t control the actual hash power, which is distributed among thousands of individual miners. They argue that because miners can switch pools at any time, the power is ultimately in the hands of the miners, not the pool operators. This is a comforting thought, but it ignores the economic reality. Miners join pools because they cannot afford the variance of solo mining. The pool operator decides which transactions to include in a block. The miner has no say. So the power is indeed centralized.
Others say that the market will correct itself — that as fees rise, small miners will return. But fees have not risen enough. The block space is still heavily reliant on the subsidy. With the halving, the subsidy is now half of what it was, and the next halving will cut it again. The only way for miners to survive is to scale up, which means more centralization. This is not a market failure; it is a structural flaw in the incentive design.
Governance is not a vote; it is a vigil. We cannot afford to be passive. The Bitcoin community must actively monitor hash rate distribution and pressure pools to remain decentralized. Some pools have already implemented “p2p” mining protocols that allow miners to verify blocks themselves, but adoption is slow. We need to demand that pools adopt transparent governance and open-source their payout algorithms.
During my time building the “VietChain Dialogue” community in Ho Chi Minh City, I saw how local developers could preserve their sovereignty by running their own nodes and mining in small pools. They understood that decentralization is not a feature you buy; it is a practice you maintain. The same applies to Bitcoin. We cannot rely on the code to protect us. We must protect the code.
Takeaway: A Call for Spiritual Resilience in the Face of Consolidation
The fourth halving has revealed a truth that many in the crypto space avoid: decentralization is not a destination; it is a continuous struggle. The protocol must serve the human spirit, not the other way around. We build bridges from the ashes of belief — the belief that code alone can save us. But I have seen the ashes. I have audited the code that failed, the governance that faltered, and the communities that broke apart. The only way forward is to hold space for the digital soul, to listen to the silence between the blocks.
Truth is the only immutable asset. We cannot let the narrative of “decentralized by default” lull us into complacency. The hash rate concentration is real, and it is accelerating. If we do not act, we will wake up one day to find that the network we trusted is controlled by a few. The question is not whether Bitcoin can survive the next halving; it is whether we can survive our own passivity.
I leave you with this: the next time you see a block mined, ask yourself — who decided what transactions were included? Who holds the power to redefine the rules? The answer may be uncomfortable. But facing that discomfort is the first step toward building a truly resilient network. Governance is not a vote; it is a vigil. And the vigil has just begun.
