The ViaBTC Mining Guide explains payouts by separating mining income into block rewards, transaction fees, valid shares, pool fees, and settlement rules. As of May 20, 2026, ViaBTC supports PPS+ and PPLNS, with PPS+ used as the default method. Under PPS+, the block-reward portion carries a 4% pool fee, while transaction fees distributed through PPLNS carry a 2% fee. PPLNS applies a 2% fee to block rewards and transaction fees together. ViaBTC also calculates PPLNS allocations after 6 block confirmations using each miner’s share of hashrate across the previous 5 difficulty rounds, giving miners measurable reference points for reading payout records.
A mining payout starts with submitted work rather than the balance shown at the end of the day. Mining hardware sends shares to the pool, and accepted shares show how much work a miner contributed relative to the pool difficulty. Under PPS+, ViaBTC calculates the block-reward portion from submitted shares, current mining difficulty, the block reward, and the applicable 4% fee. The calculation is performed every hour according to ViaBTC’s May 20, 2026 documentation.
That hourly treatment matters because Bitcoin mining is probabilistic at the block level. A miner can operate at the same hashrate for 24 hours while the pool finds more or fewer blocks than its statistical expectation. PPS+ reduces the miner’s exposure to that short-term difference for the block-reward portion because valid shares are paid according to theoretical production rather than waiting for a matching number of blocks to be found.
Transaction fees are handled differently. In PPS+, ViaBTC distributes the transaction-fee portion through PPLNS, with a 2% fee rather than the 4% rate applied to the PPS block-reward component. The amount is based on blocks actually found, so a miner can see relatively steady block-reward payments while the transaction-fee part changes from one settlement period to another.
A PPS+ balance should therefore not be read as one uniform payment stream. The block-reward portion and transaction-fee portion follow different settlement rules, different fee rates, and different timing conditions.
PPLNS places both the block reward and transaction fees under the same actual-block settlement structure. ViaBTC applies a 2% fee and calculates a miner’s allocation from the miner’s hashrate share relative to total pool hashrate. Payment is connected to blocks actually mined rather than a theoretical per-share block-reward payment.
ViaBTC specifies another measurement that is easy to overlook: after a block receives 6 confirmations, PPLNS distribution uses each miner’s proportion of pool hashrate over the previous 5 difficulty rounds. A miner who checks only a few minutes of dashboard hashrate may therefore compare the wrong time window with the eventual payment.
| Payment method | Block reward | Transaction fees | Listed fee | Settlement basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPS+ | PPS | PPLNS | 4% / 2% | Valid shares plus actual fee income |
| PPLNS | PPLNS | PPLNS | 2% | Actual blocks and hashrate share |
| SOLO | Discontinued in 2026 | Discontinued in 2026 | — | No longer offered |
The SOLO row matters because older mining guides and third-party articles may still describe ViaBTC as supporting three settlement methods. ViaBTC discontinued SOLO for all supported coins on May 20, 2026. Accounts using SOLO were moved to PPS+ where that method was available, or to PPLNS for coins without PPS+ support. Current payout comparisons should therefore use PPS+ and PPLNS rather than older three-method descriptions.
Bitcoin itself adds another layer to the calculation. The April 2024 halving reduced the Bitcoin block subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC per block. A miner running the same machines before and after that event could not expect the same BTC-denominated production from the subsidy component when network difficulty, total hashrate, fees, and pool conditions were otherwise comparable.
Transaction fees sit on top of the 3.125 BTC subsidy and can change with demand for block space. A block with more fee income can distribute more mining income than a block with lower fees even though both carry the same protocol-defined subsidy. PPS+ users therefore need to separate the relatively structured share-based block component from the actual transaction-fee component when comparing two days.
ViaBTC’s published pricing data provides a practical scale. In its current 2026 fee table, the estimated BTC PPS+ daily amount is listed at about 0.00000048 BTC per TH/s, based on the previous 7 days and shown as approximately 98.31% of the PPS reference. The site states that the figure is an estimate rather than a guaranteed daily payment.
Using that listed rate only as an illustration, 100 TH/s corresponds to about 0.000048 BTC per day before treating the estimate as an actual machine result. At 200 TH/s, the same reference rate would produce about 0.000096 BTC per day. Real credited amounts can differ because difficulty, accepted work, transaction fees, hashrate delivery, and settlement timing do not remain fixed.
The distinction between local hashrate and pool-side hashrate also affects payout analysis. An ASIC may report 200 TH/s locally, but the pool estimates delivered hashrate from submitted shares. If network conditions, stale work, connection quality, or hardware errors reduce accepted work by 2%, the revenue comparison should be based on roughly 196 TH/s of effective contribution rather than simply assuming the local 200 TH/s figure was fully credited.
Rejected shares deserve the same treatment. Suppose two machines each display 100 TH/s, but one delivers 99% accepted work while the other delivers 96%. Their local hashrate appears identical, yet the second machine supplies less usable work to the pool. Looking at accepted shares across several hours gives a better payout check than comparing one dashboard snapshot.
Pool fees become easier to judge once the payment model is separated from machine performance. A 4% PPS+ block-reward fee and a 2% PPLNS fee are not interchangeable charges applied to identical settlement exposure. Under PPS+, the pool assumes the short-term block-luck and orphaned-block exposure for the PPS block-reward part; under PPLNS, miners receive allocations from blocks actually found.
A simplified $1,000 equivalent mining period shows the size of the fee difference before other variables are included. A 4% charge equals $40, while 2% equals $20. The $20 difference alone does not show which method pays more over a particular month because PPLNS results depend on actual block discovery, while PPS+ prices part of that uncertainty into the higher fee.
Fee percentage should be read beside the settlement method, not by itself. A lower percentage can accompany more uneven short-period payments because the pool is distributing actual block production rather than paying the theoretical block component for each accepted share.
For operators with recurring electricity bills, that difference can affect cash planning. A farm consuming 3,000 kWh per day at $0.07 per kWh spends about $210 daily on electricity before hosting, maintenance, cooling, and equipment costs. A settlement method producing steadier block-reward payments may make daily expense coverage easier to estimate even when long-period mining economics are similar.
Smaller operators may assess the same choice differently. If electricity costs $0.10 per kWh and a miner consumes 72 kWh per day, electricity alone is $7.20 daily. Comparing that amount with gross BTC production requires the BTC market price at the time of calculation; a mining dashboard showing coin production does not by itself report operating profit.
The ViaBTC Mining Pool guide also helps users separate payout creation from withdrawal. ViaBTC’s June 12, 2026 documentation states that automatic withdrawal occurs when the wallet balance exceeds the minimum payment requirement. Amounts below that threshold remain in the account balance until the requirement is met, while withdrawals to a user’s own ViaBTC account are not subject to the same minimum as long as the amount is above zero.
That distinction explains why “mined,” “credited,” and “received in an external wallet” can represent different moments. A miner may have income recorded in the pool account while no external transaction has yet occurred. Checking the settlement record, account balance, minimum withdrawal requirement, and withdrawal history in that order prevents a delayed transfer from being mistaken for missing mining income.
Coin support also affects which settlement choice is available. ViaBTC’s August 14, 2026 pool information lists BTC, BCH, LTC, ZEC, DASH, HNS, and several other pools with coin-specific methods. BTC currently supports PPS+ and PPLNS, while some pools, including ETC and CKB in that published table, use PPLNS rather than offering both methods.
Merged mining can add another entry to the account without changing the primary machine’s proof-of-work algorithm. ViaBTC’s 2026 pricing information lists additional merged-mining distributions for selected pools, including assets associated with BTC and LTC mining. A user comparing total account receipts with a simple BTC-per-TH estimate should check whether extra credited assets are being counted separately.
For a practical payout review, four numbers should be placed next to each other: local hashrate, pool-side accepted hashrate, the selected payment method, and the credited coin amount for the same period. Adding network difficulty and the applicable 4% or 2% fee gives enough context to explain many routine differences without treating every day-to-day change as a hardware problem.
A 24-hour comparison is useful for operations, but a longer window is better for judging PPLNS. Because PPLNS depends on actual blocks and ViaBTC uses the previous 5 difficulty rounds for allocation after 6 confirmations, a single low-paying day does not provide enough information to evaluate long-run performance. PPS+ can be assessed over shorter accounting periods because its block-reward component is calculated hourly from valid shares and current difficulty.
ViaBTC’s own guidance states that, over longer periods, PPS+ and PPLNS are expected to approach similar mining output before their different fee treatment and actual mining conditions are considered. The practical difference is the path of payment: PPS+ exchanges a higher block-reward fee for steadier share-based settlement, while PPLNS uses a lower 2% fee and leaves more of the block-finding variation in the miner’s payment history.