Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Stays Below Record as AI Competition Grows

A historic stretch without a difficulty record

Bitcoin mining is experiencing an unusually prolonged period without a new difficulty high, even though the network remains valuable, according to the supplied report. Difficulty reached almost 156 trillion on October 29, 2025. At the time of the report, it was just over 148 trillion, leaving it about 5% below that peak. The central issue is not simply the latest reading, but how long the network has gone without surpassing its record.

The interval has now exceeded Bitcoin’s previous longest wait for a difficulty record, which lasted roughly 364 days from August 2011 to July 2012. That earlier stretch occurred as Bitcoin’s price fell by about 94% to 95%, the report says. The comparison gives the present weakness historical context, but it does not mean the periods share the same cause: the current slowdown is described as occurring without a comparable collapse.

The other major historical comparison is the downturn that followed China’s sweeping ban on domestic crypto mining in 2021. That policy forced a substantial portion of global hash rate to relocate, according to the report. Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, has characterized today’s record-free period as the longest in Bitcoin’s history, while emphasizing that it has unfolded without anything remotely comparable to the China ban.

Halvings and returns put pressure on mining economics

That contrast shifts attention from a single disruptive event to the economics of operating a mining business. Ammous points to Bitcoin’s programmed halvings, which reduce the block subsidy by 50% roughly every four years. Because the subsidy is a key source of miner revenue, a halving changes the amount of bitcoin received for producing blocks. Miners therefore have to assess whether the value of that smaller reward can support the equipment, electricity and other resources devoted to mining.

Ammous estimates that, over a four-year period, Bitcoin’s value would need to appreciate by almost 19% annually to compensate for the subsidy reduction. The estimate excludes the effects of dollar devaluation and the rising opportunity cost associated with AI infrastructure, as described in the report. It is an argument about the return mining needs to remain attractive, not a forecast that Bitcoin will or will not achieve a particular price increase.

If expected mining returns fall short of that threshold, committing additional capital and electricity to new mining capacity becomes progressively less appealing, Ammous argues. This helps explain why the difficulty metric may remain below its prior high even without a ban or a dramatic market crash. The report does not establish how much of the current weakness is due to this calculation, nor does it quantify the relative impact of halvings, asset prices or operating costs.

AI infrastructure creates an alternative for miners

A further change is the competition for power and data-center facilities. Ammous argues that Bitcoin miners no longer have the same exclusive access to cheap electricity and data-center infrastructure they once enjoyed. AI companies are now competing for those resources and may offer facility operators a more profitable use for them. The practical choice for some businesses is therefore not limited to adding mining machines or shutting down: they can redirect infrastructure to other customers.

Core Scientific is the clearest example cited in the report. The company said it plans to leave Bitcoin mining completely by the end of the year and enter 2027 as a dedicated provider of colocation for AI and high-performance computing. It has already cut its mining fleet by almost half while shifting electricity and data-center capacity toward infrastructure customers. The plan illustrates one company’s strategic decision, rather than proof that every miner is making the same move.

The reported financial figures show why that transition may appeal to Core Scientific. Its colocation revenue rose 58% quarter over quarter to $215.4 million in the third quarter, compared with $15 million a year earlier. Those figures indicate rapid growth in that part of the company’s business, but they do not by themselves establish that the same revenue prospects are available to other miners. The report provides no broader industry-wide comparison of AI colocation returns with mining income.

What the shift could mean for Bitcoin

A shift of facilities and electricity away from mining could alter how some companies allocate capital, but the implications for Bitcoin are not necessarily one-sided. Ammous argues that if mining becomes less attractive than simply holding BTC, funds that might have paid for machines, facilities and power could instead go directly into Bitcoin. This is a proposed economic effect, not a reported measurement of capital already moving from mining investment into direct holdings.

Ammous also expects declining electricity consumption to weaken one of the most persistent criticisms of Bitcoin and its network. That point follows from his view that less attractive mining economics could reduce the resources devoted to the activity. The report does not provide a measured fall in network electricity use, however, or establish how any decline would compare with changes in mining capacity. The environmental implication remains an expectation rather than a confirmed outcome.

Important questions remain open: whether the difficulty metric will eventually set another record, how miners will respond to halving-driven revenue pressure, and how durable AI demand for data-center capacity will be. The source does not quantify the overall migration of electricity or capital, or show that Core Scientific’s plan represents the industry as a whole. For now, the evidence presented is a historic difficulty gap, a structural argument about returns, and one prominent example of a company redirecting capacity.

Source: CryptoPotato