In the bitcoin mining network, the United States’ share has fallen and Russia’s has risen, but concentration among the top three countries still exceeds 65%, according to estimates.

CryptoSlate, a blockchain media outlet, reported on Oct. 6 local time that Hashrate Index’s October country estimates show the gap between the United States and Russia has narrowed somewhat. The combined share of the United States, Russia and China stands at 65.4%.

The estimated hashrate for the United States fell to 335 EH/s from 345 EH/s in the previous comparison. Its share eased to 35.6% from 36.7%. Russia rose to 170 EH/s from 162 EH/s and its share increased to 18.1% from 17.2%. China declined to about 110 EH/s from about 115 EH/s.

The figures estimate each country’s share of the network’s total hashrate. The top three countries’ share fell 0.8 percentage points to 65.4% from 66.2%. The estimated total network hashrate, however, was little changed, edging to about 941 EH/s from about 940 EH/s. That suggests it is hard to say overall mining capacity has broadly risen or fallen sharply even though the country distribution has shifted.

The data was released as a fourth-quarter update, but the actual observation period reflects the previous third-quarter trend. Hashrate Index said the figures are not confirmed fourth-quarter results or a real-time survey as of Oct. 6. That makes it more appropriate to view the country figures as a quarterly comparison indicator rather than a short-term final reading.

The key point is that the U.S. share has fallen while Russia’s has grown. But that does not immediately mean mining equipment moved from the United States to Russia. National totals can change even if equipment stops in one country and separate equipment starts operating in another. CryptoSlate reported that it is not possible to confirm any shift from the United States to Russia based only on country totals.

Country-level mining shares show where mining takes place, but they do not explain who ultimately owns the equipment or who controls transaction selection and block production. Separate from the location data presented by Hashrate Index, the entities that operate mining pools and those that own equipment may differ. As the Bitcoin developer guide explains, pooled mining separates miners who provide hash computations from pools that coordinate work and distribute rewards. Under the existing Stratum structure, it is also possible for miners to be unable to directly review or add transactions included in a block.

For that reason, even if mining equipment is spread across more countries, it is hard to say that authority over block content selection has also been decentralised. The outlet also noted that transaction selection may be independent of the physical location of equipment. Stratum V2 optionally allows miners to choose a set of transactions, but it is not confirmed how widely this feature is currently used.

It is also difficult to interpret the causes of declines in country-level mining in a uniform way. Luxor Technologies mentioned a shift to artificial intelligence and high-performance computing as a factor behind reduced mining in some regions. Kill Infrastructure said in an Aug. 10 operations disclosure that it has halted all U.S. bitcoin mining operations and completed preparations to build high-performance computing capacity. Core Scientific also said in earnings materials dated July 28 that it is in the process of converting its remaining mining facilities into high-density colocation services depending on conditions.

Still, such corporate cases do not fully explain the entire national decline. Equipment that has stopped temporarily can resume operations if conditions improve, but facilities being converted for other uses face a different path to return. A hashrate decline alone does not allow a judgment on whether it reflects an actual conversion, a temporary suspension or how lasting the change will be. In Ethiopia’s case, power constraints were cited as a reason for a decline, but country-level increases and decreases alone cannot separate the contribution of power rationing, seasonal factors or policy impacts.

Ultimately, the change is closer to a signal that bitcoin mining’s geographic exposure has been adjusted in part. The top three country-centred structure remains intact, and only the relative shares of the United States and Russia have changed. To judge whether ownership decentralisation has improved and whether mining pool concentration is being maintained, additional data is needed beyond country location estimates, including equipment ownership information, mining pool participation and block template selection.