Who controls Bitcoin: is mining at risk of centralization?

Bitcoin was conceived as a network without a single governing authority. There is no central bank, administration, or company capable of changing the rules at its own discretion. However, a significant share of the network’s computing power is now concentrated among several major mining pools.

This raises a natural question: does Bitcoin remain truly decentralized, or is control over it gradually shifting to the largest market participants?

Bitcoin operates using the Proof-of-Work mechanism. Miners around the world use computing equipment to process transactions, create new blocks, and maintain network security.

The more computing power a participant has, the greater their chances of finding the next block and receiving a reward. This power is measured by the hash rate — the number of computational operations that the equipment can perform per second.

In theory, miners can operate independently. In practice, solo mining has long since turned into a lottery with extremely low chances of success. This is why equipment owners join mining pools.

A pool distributes computational tasks among its participants and then divides the reward received for mining a block in proportion to each miner’s contribution. This model makes miners’ income more predictable, but at the same time leads to the concentration of hash rate among major operators.

According to Mining Pool Stats, more than 140 pools operate within the Bitcoin network. At first glance, this may appear to indicate a high level of decentralization. However, more than half of the network’s computing power is controlled by just three of the largest pools.

As of July 2026, Foundry USA is the largest Bitcoin mining pool. It accounts for more than 24% of the network’s total hash rate — over 250 EH/s.

Foundry USA was launched in 2019 by Digital Currency Group. Initially, the pool was primarily focused on institutional clients and industrial mining enterprises, but it later opened access to smaller participants as well.

Digital Currency Group is also associated with Grayscale Investments, which manages investment products based on digital assets.

Antpool holds second place and was launched in 2014. It is one of the oldest mining pools still operating in the industry.

Antpool accounts for more than 16% of Bitcoin’s total hash rate, or approximately 171 EH/s. The pool is owned by Bitmain, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of specialized mining equipment.

The combination of a hardware manufacturer and a major mining pool makes Bitmain one of the most influential participants in the mining industry.

F2Pool was launched in 2013 and held a leading position in the market during its early years. Its current hash rate is almost 147 EH/s, representing approximately 14% of the network’s total computing power.

Although F2Pool later lost its leading position to Foundry USA and Antpool, it remains one of the key operators in Bitcoin mining.

The ViaBTC pool has been operating since 2016. In 2026, its share exceeds 7% of the total hash rate, while its computing power amounts to more than 77 EH/s.

The company was founded in China, but after the government tightened mining regulations, it redistributed its infrastructure across several countries in Asia, Europe, and the CIS.

The five largest pools also include the mining pool associated with Binance. It accounts for approximately 7% of the Bitcoin network’s computing power.

The involvement of major trading platforms in mining demonstrates how closely interconnected the different segments of the industry have become: exchanges, investment companies, equipment manufacturers, and computing infrastructure operators.

The Nakamoto coefficient is used to assess the decentralization of blockchain networks. It indicates the minimum number of independent participants that would need to cooperate to gain critical influence over a particular element of the network.

In the case of Bitcoin, this indicator is often calculated based on the number of the largest pools that collectively control more than half of the network’s hash rate.

According to D-Central, in the first half of 2026, Bitcoin mining’s Nakamoto coefficient was three. In other words, the three largest pools could theoretically combine their computing power to control most of the block creation process.

At first glance, this may sound like an opportunity to take complete control of the network. However, controlling the hash rate and controlling the protocol are not the same thing.

Even the largest pools cannot independently increase Bitcoin’s maximum supply, remove protocol restrictions, or force independent nodes to accept an invalid block. The network’s rules are verified by thousands of nodes operated by different users and organizations.

If a miner attempts to create a block that violates Bitcoin’s rules, full nodes will reject it, regardless of how much computing power the sender controls.

The main risk is not rewriting Bitcoin’s rules, but influencing the order in which transactions are processed.

A pool operator creates a block template and chooses which transactions to include. If several of the largest pools begin acting together, they could theoretically delay certain transfers, refuse to include them in their blocks, or attempt to reorganize the network’s recent history.

This scenario is commonly associated with a “51% attack.” By gaining control of the majority of the hash rate, a participant or group of participants may attempt to carry out double spending or reverse their own recently confirmed transactions.

At the same time, they would not be able to take coins from other people’s wallets, issue bitcoins beyond the established limit, or arbitrarily change any user’s balance.

A more realistic threat is censorship. Large mining companies operate within specific jurisdictions, use banking infrastructure, enter into contracts with energy companies, and depend on regulatory requirements.

The fewer independent operators controlling block production, the easier it becomes to exert political, legal, or economic pressure on them.

It is also important to consider that a pool does not usually own all of the equipment connected to it. Independent miners provide a significant share of its hash rate. If an operator begins acting against the interests of participants or the network, equipment owners can redirect their computing power to another pool.

This reduces the risk of a long-term takeover, although it does not eliminate the problem of concentration.

The main condition for Bitcoin’s resilience is the distribution of computing power among a large number of independent participants.

The more pools operate across different countries and legal systems, the harder it becomes to coordinate pressure on the network, introduce uniform restrictions, or censor transactions.

Energy also plays an important role. Mining tends to move to locations where electricity is cheaper and more accessible. If profitable energy sources are concentrated in only a few regions, computing power gradually becomes concentrated in those same areas.

The use of hydropower, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources makes it possible to deploy equipment across a greater number of countries. This reduces the network’s dependence on individual energy companies, industrial centers, and national regulators.

According to Binance, the share of renewable energy used in Bitcoin mining increases by an average of 5.8% each year.

No single mining pool controls Bitcoin on its own. Even if the largest operators joined forces, they would not be able to change the protocol’s rules arbitrarily.

However, mining infrastructure is indeed becoming more concentrated. Several pools are gaining increasing influence over block formation and transaction processing.

Bitcoin therefore remains decentralized at the level of its rules, software code, and independent nodes, while showing signs of centralization at the block production level.

The main threat is not that one company will one day “switch off” Bitcoin. The danger lies in the gradual reduction in the number of independent decision-making centers.

The more widely miners, pools, nodes, and energy sources are distributed, the more resilient the network becomes to censorship, regulation, and coordinated attacks. It is this distribution, rather than the mere absence of an official owner, that determines Bitcoin’s true decentralization.