Bitcoin's mining difficulty decreased by 11.16% to approximately 125.86 trillion at the most recent retarget boundary around block 935,424. That marks the largestBitcoin's mining difficulty decreased by 11.16% to approximately 125.86 trillion at the most recent retarget boundary around block 935,424. That marks the largest

Bitcoin difficulty just printed a historic -11.16% — if the next epoch stays red, miners are in trouble

2026/02/13 19:35
9 min read

Bitcoin's mining difficulty decreased by 11.16% to approximately 125.86 trillion at the most recent retarget boundary around block 935,424.

That marks the largest negative adjustment since the 2021 China mining ban, the sixth consecutive downward retarget, and the tenth largest negative adjustment in Bitcoin's history.

However, difficulty adjustments are lagging indicators, as they reflect what occurred over the previous 2,016 blocks rather than what's happening now.

The real question is whether the machines that went dark are coming back, or whether this retarget marks the start of a deeper miner shakeout.

The most useful forward signal is the next adjustment. CoinWarz is already estimating a 12% rebound around Feb. 20, which implies that hashrate is returning fast.

This is a movement more consistent with curtailment and short-term economics than with a structural miner exodus. If that rebound fails to materialize and the difficulty continues to decline, then “capitulation” becomes more than a headline.

Difficulty breakdownChart showing Bitcoin's difficulty adjustments with the recent 11.16% drop at block 935,424 and CoinWarz projecting an 11.73% rebound by February 20, 2026.

Three drivers, only one tied to capitulation

The difficulty drop indicates slower block times relative to the previous epoch, indicating that less hashrate was online.

Yet, three distinct forces can push hashrate offline, and they don't all mean the same thing.

Forced curtailment and outages are transitory. Winter Storm Fern hammered US miners in early February, forcing grid-connected operations to shut down during peak demand.

Foundry's pool hash reportedly dropped roughly 60% during peak disruption. When miners curtail operations during grid emergencies, the hashrate disappears overnight and can return just as quickly once the weather clears.

Related Reading

Bitcoin miners are making millions by shutting down because of a massive US winter storm

A storm, a spike in power prices, and a wave of voluntary shutoffs turned block times into a lesson in miner incentives.

Jan 31, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

That kind of offline event looks dramatic in difficulty numbers, but doesn't signal financial distress.
Economics-driven shutdowns are capitulation-adjacent.

The revenue per unit of hashrate, called hashprice, printed record lows in early February. TheEnergyMag reported hashprice falling below $32 per petahash per day, and Hashrate Index data shows live hashprice hovering in the low $30s.

When hashprice is crushed, marginal fleets running older ASICs or paying higher power costs shut off. That can be capitulation, but it can also be rational idling: miners waiting for difficulty to reset and profitability to improve before turning machines back on.

The protocol rewards that patience. Cutting difficulty 11.16% raises expected Bitcoin earned per unit hash by roughly 12.6% until the hashrate returns, creating a short profitability honeymoon for survivors.

Structural shifts represent slow-burning capitulation. Some miners are increasingly treating Bitcoin mining as an optional workload, with AI and high-performance computing data center pivots appearing alongside stress coverage for miners.

Related Reading

70% of top Bitcoin miners are already using AI income to survive bear market

Ranking the top Bitcoin miners by AI revenue and hashrate reveals how the industry’s leaders are redefining scale.

Nov 8, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

If firms are reallocating capital from ASICs to data centers, the hashrate that goes offline may not return, at least not quickly. That's a different kind of capitulation: a strategic exit.

Profitability squeezeChart showing Bitcoin hashprice declining from $48 to roughly $32 per petahash daily before rebounding after the difficulty adjustment at block 935,424.

Capitulation checklist: what to watch

A double-digit negative retarget can mean very different things depending on subsequent events. Treat it like a diagnostic test rather than a verdict.

Protocol and hashrate behavior indicate whether machines are returning. Hashrate rebound speed is the clearest signal: a rapid snapback within hours or days indicates curtailment, while a slow grind suggests deeper stress.

The next retarget projection is your proxy. CoinWarz's 12% rebound estimate implies the hash is already returning. If that projection holds, the difficulty drop was a lagging artifact of temporary offline capacity.

Difficulty path over multiple epochs matters, too. A single large cut followed by a rebound isn't capitulation; multiple consecutive cuts define a stress regime.

The last 30 to 90 days have already seen cumulative difficulty decline in the double digits, which means this retarget wasn't the first sign of trouble, just the loudest.

Changes in pool concentration can reveal the reallocation of real-world capacity. If big pools lose market share structurally rather than temporarily, that's a signal that mining infrastructure is changing hands or going offline permanently.

Foundry's disruption during the storm is worth watching in that context.

Miner economics explain why machines shut off in the first place. Hashprice versus “pain thresholds” is the core metric.

Record or near-record lows are when marginal rigs go dark. A Bitcoin price drawdown relative to difficulty creates a squeeze: if price falls faster than difficulty can reset, stress spikes.

That's the macro tie-in for why this happened now. Fee support, the share of block rewards coming from transaction fees rather than the subsidy, also matters.

If fees aren't cushioning the subsidy, miners live or die on price and efficiency. Low fee environments amplify hashprice stress.

Balance-sheet stress is where true capitulation usually shows up.

Miner selling pressure, consisting of spikes in miner-to-exchange flows or reserve drawdowns, signals forced liquidation.

Public miner financing behavior, like emergency debt or equity raises, asset sales, or restructuring language, also flags distress.

ASIC secondary-market pricing is another tell: sharp drops in used ASIC prices suggest forced liquidation, while stable pricing suggests temporary offline capacity instead of bankruptcy.

Related Reading

Crypto market bottom is closer than you think as Bitcoin miner reserves crash to historic lows

While ETFs dominate the news the internal plumbing of the network suggests a forced selling event is currently brewing.

Feb 9, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Weather, economics, or structure

Weather whiplash is the transitory case. Curtailment and outages push hashrate offline, difficulty drops, and hashrate returns quickly once conditions normalize.

In this scenario, the next retarget would flip positive, exactly what CoinWarz is projecting. This scenario means the difficulty drop was mostly operational.

The network adjusts, profitability improves for those who stayed online, and offline capacity returns.

Economic shakeout is classic capitulation. Hashprice stays depressed, Bitcoin price remains weak, and older fleets stay offline because running at a loss makes no sense.

You'd see repeated negative adjustments over multiple epochs, elevated miner selling, and falling ASIC resale prices.

That creates short-term sell pressure risk and longer-term industry consolidation as weaker operators exit and stronger ones acquire distressed assets.

Structural reset is the path to reallocating data centers. Some firms treat mining as interruptible and reallocate capital to AI or high-performance computing. Hashrate becomes more seasonal and price-sensitive, leading to choppier difficulty adjustments and larger swings.

Bitcoin's security budget is increasingly tied to broader compute and energy markets. That's not a crisis, but it does change the dynamics of how hashrate responds to price.

SignalIf curtailment / outageIf economics capitulationIf structural exitWhere to pull the data
Next retarget direction & sizeFast rebound (next epoch flips positive) as curtailed hash comes back quicklyWeak/flat rebound or more negative retargets if marginal fleets stay offlineChoppy / repeated down epochs even after the “relief” because hash doesn’t returnCoinWarz “Bitcoin Difficulty Chart” (next estimate + blocks remaining). (coinwarz.com)
Avg block time (current epoch)Block times snap back toward ~10 min within days as hash returnsBlock times stay slow (>10 min) because shutdowns persist until profitability improvesBlock times remain volatile (hash becomes more interruptible/seasonal)CoinWarz difficulty chart + hashrate chart includes current block time. (coinwarz.com)
Hashprice ($/PH/day) + 30D MAHashprice stabilizes/rebounds after the event; shutdowns were operationalHashprice stays near pain thresholds (e.g., “< ~$32/PH/day” reports) → marginal rigs offHashprice recovers but capex still shifts away from ASIC growth; mining becomes “optional”Hashrate Index live “Hashprice $/PH/DAY” + definition page; record-low coverage (TheMinerMag/TheEnergyMag). (hashrateindex.com)
Fee support (fees % of total reward)Fees can mask downtime; no sustained stress if fee share is elevatedLow fee share + low price = worst squeeze; stress amplifiedPersistent low fees make mining more dependent on power efficiency + alternative revenue modelsBitbo “Fees as % of Total Block Reward”. (Bitbo Charts)
Pool share dislocations (e.g., Foundry disruption)A large pool’s share drops then normalizes (temporary curtailment)Smaller/high-cost pools lose share; consolidation toward efficient operatorsDurable geographic/pool share reshuffle as infra changes hands or exitsHashrate Index pool distribution + Cointelegraph/TradingView report on Foundry’s storm-driven drop. (hashrateindex.com)
Miner selling pressure (confirming signal)No major sustained spike in miner→exchange flows; reserves broadly stableSpikes in miner→exchange flows + miner reserves down (forced liquidity)Sustained net outflows / declining miner balances over weeks-months (strategic distribution)CryptoQuant “Miner to Exchange Flow (Total)” + “Miner Reserve”; Glassnode “Miner Balance”. (Cryptoquant)
ASIC resale prices (liquidation vs orderly idling)Prices broadly stable; used market doesn’t gap downUsed ASIC prices drop sharply (esp. older tiers) → liquidationProlonged softness in ASIC pricing (capex redirected), slow recovery in demandHashrate Index ASIC Price Index. (data.hashrateindex.com)

What the rebound tells

The next retarget is the cleanest test of which scenario is playing out. If hashrate snaps back and difficulty rebounds as CoinWarz projects, the “capitulation” narrative fades.

The drop was real, but it reflected temporary disruptions, such as weather, short-term economics, and rational idling.

Miners who stayed online captured the profitability honeymoon, the difficulty resets to match the returning hashrate, and the network moved on.

The stress only gets deeper if the rebound doesn't materialize, which is unlikely. Yet if difficulty declines for two to three more epochs, that would imply the offline hashrate isn't coming back quickly, either because the economics don't support it or because the capital has moved elsewhere.

In that case, the expectation is that the balance sheet stress signals will start flashing: elevated selling, financing scrambles, and ASIC liquidation.

The difficulty drop itself is backward-looking.

It confirms that a meaningful share of hashpower was offline over the last two weeks, some for economic reasons and some for operational reasons.

What matters now is whether those machines are coming back, and the answer will show up in the data over the next week.

The protocol doesn't care about narratives, it just adjusts to whatever hashrate shows up.

Whether this retarget was a transitory blip or the start of a miner exodus depends on what happens next, not what already happened.

The post Bitcoin difficulty just printed a historic -11.16% — if the next epoch stays red, miners are in trouble appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Market Opportunity
Blockstreet Logo
Blockstreet Price(BLOCK)
$0.007604
$0.007604$0.007604
-1.07%
USD
Blockstreet (BLOCK) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

VanEck Targets Stablecoins & Next-Gen ICOs

VanEck Targets Stablecoins & Next-Gen ICOs

The post VanEck Targets Stablecoins & Next-Gen ICOs appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Welcome to the US Crypto News Morning Briefing—your essential rundown of the most important developments in crypto for the day ahead. Grab a coffee because the firms shaping crypto’s future are not just building products, but also trying to reshape how capital flows. Crypto News of the Day: VanEck Maps Next Frontier of Crypto Venture Investing VanEck, a Wall Street player known for financial “firsts,” is pushing that legacy into Web3. The firsts include pioneering US gold funds and launching one of the earliest spot Bitcoin ETFs. Sponsored Sponsored “Financial instruments have always been a kind of tokenization. From seashells to traveler’s checks, from relational databases to today’s on-chain assets. You could even joke that VanEck’s first gold mutual funds were the original ‘tokenized gold,’” Juan C. Lopez, General Partner at VanEck Ventures, told BeInCrypto. That same instinct drives the firm’s venture bets. Lopez said VanEck goes beyond writing checks and brings the full weight of the firm. This extends from regulatory proximity to product experiments to founders building the next phase of crypto infrastructure. Asked about key investment priorities, Lopez highlighted stablecoins. “We care deeply about three questions: How do we accelerate stablecoin ubiquity? What will users want to do with them once highly distributed? And what net new assets can we construct now that we have sophisticated market infrastructure?” Lopez added. However, VanEck is not limiting itself to the hottest narrative, acknowledging that decentralized finance (DeFi) is having a renaissance. The VanEck executive also noted that success will depend on new approaches to identity and programmable compliance layered on public blockchains. Backing Legion With A New Model for ICOs Sponsored Sponsored That compliance-first angle explains VanEck Ventures’ recent co-lead of Legion’s $5 million seed round alongside Brevan Howard. Legion aims to reinvent token fundraising by making early-stage access…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:52
Hacker behind the UXLINK attack loses $48 million to a phishing scam

Hacker behind the UXLINK attack loses $48 million to a phishing scam

The post Hacker behind the UXLINK attack loses $48 million to a phishing scam appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The UXLINK exploiter has been phished merely hours after the AI-powered Web 3 social platform’s multi-sig wallet had been breached. Lookonchain had reported on Monday that UXLINK’s multi-signature wallet was compromised, with funds drained across centralized and decentralized exchanges.  According to the blockchain analytics platform, the attacker was phished and lost 542 million UXLINK tokens, valued at approximately $48 million.  Interestingly, the hacker who attacked $UXLINK was targeted by a phishing attack and lost 542M $UXLINK($48M).https://t.co/Cp9QNHPE8Xhttps://t.co/M8tbPYAdiq pic.twitter.com/PxadIIfkDi — Lookonchain (@lookonchain) September 23, 2025 UXLINK had earlier admitted that its multi-sig wallet had been breached, and said that “a significant amount of crypto” was illicitly transferred, but most of them were frozen. “Our team is working through legal and compliant measures to ensure that the UXLINK token supply fully aligns with the rules stated in the whitepaper. The white paper remains the sole community consensus and standard for UXLINK’s token economy,” the project team wrote on X. UXLINK breach involved six wallets Security monitoring firm Cyvers Alerts flagged unusual activity early Monday on an Ethereum address linked to UXLINK. The account executed a delegateCall, removed the existing administrator role, and added a new multisig owner. After making the change, the hacker moved at least $4 million in USDT, $500,000 in USDC, 3.7 wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), and 25 ETH. Onchain evidence also showed that the attacker sold UXLINK tokens on decentralized exchanges using six separate wallets. These trades netted at least 6,732 ETH, valued at roughly $28.1 million. Hours after pulling off the UXLINK exploit, the attacker themselves fell victim to a phishing scheme. Arbiscan onchain records show the loss occurred on Tuesday at around 02:15 UTC under the transaction hash 0xa70674ccc9caa17d6efaf3f6fcbd5dec40011744c18a1057f391a822f11986ee. Phishing attack on the UXLINK scammer. Source: Arbiscan. Two large transfers of UXLINK tokens were directed from the…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/23 18:34
SUI: Where the Price Might Be Heading After the $1.02 Breakout Attempt

SUI: Where the Price Might Be Heading After the $1.02 Breakout Attempt

SUI is trading near $1.034, attempting to hold above the key $1.02 resistance level after breaking out from a rounded base formation. The level that matters is $
Share
Ethnews2026/02/15 16:35