<p>There is no minimum power needed to mine solo. You should note, however, that if you mine solo, your rewards will be much more inconsistent than if you mine in a pool. This is the major reason why pooled mining exists.</p>

<p>With 5 TH/s at the current difficulty, the average time for you to find a block <a href="http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/" rel="nofollow">is 38 days</a>; with 1 TH/s, 189 days. But this is a random process that would average to 38 (or 189) days, and that time period is only likely to grow larger as time goes on. You have a real chance, then, of never getting any reward for your work (the reverse is also true, of course: you have a chance of finding more than expected...but I wouldn't stake thousands of dollars on it). Personally, I'd want an expected period of no more than 10 days/block (~20 TH/s currently) to consider solo mining a good option.</p>

<p>Also of note: your intuition of how any <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness" rel="nofollow">random</a> process will work out is very probably very wrong. I'd go for mining in a pool so that I don't have to deal with any large amount of randomness in this process.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T17:48:58.047Z
For various machines to make a total of 20 TH/s as a solo miner should these be under 1 address
user14248
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T19:51:28.713Z
@user14248 No, it doesn't matter whether you use one address or various addresses. There's nothing that tracks how many hashes/second an address is running. In fact, I'd prefer various addresses to add a little anonymity.
Tim S.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-07T18:48:55.503Z
2014-03-07T18:48:55.503Z
Tim S.
<p>What i am asking is a relative threshold on the minimum Hash rate needed to mine solo, taking into account todays difficulty,could it be an ASIC of 1TH/s or 5TH/s so as to compare with pool mining</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-08T18:08:46.833Z
potential duplicate: [Solo Mining vs Pool Mining for users with high computing power](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/594/solo-mining-vs-pool-mining-for-users-with-high-computing-power)
Murch
<mining-hardware><solo-mining>
Today's threshold difficulty at 3,9 what would a miner need to go solo
user14248
# Today's threshold difficulty at 3,9 what would a miner need to go solo

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-07)

What i am asking is a relative threshold on the minimum Hash rate needed to mine solo, taking into account todays difficulty,could it be an ASIC of 1TH/s or 5TH/s so as to compare with pool mining

**Tags:** mining-hardware, solo-mining

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: potential duplicate: [Solo Mining vs Pool Mining for users with high computing power](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/594/solo-mining-vs-pool-mining-for-users-with-high-computing-power)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-07. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

There is no minimum power needed to mine solo. You should note, however, that if you mine solo, your rewards will be much more inconsistent than if you mine in a pool. This is the major reason why pooled mining exists.

With 5 TH/s at the current difficulty, the average time for you to find a block [is 38 days](http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/); with 1 TH/s, 189 days. But this is a random process that would average to 38 (or 189) days, and that time period is only likely to grow larger as time goes on. You have a real chance, then, of never getting any reward for your work (the reverse is also true, of course: you have a chance of finding more than expected...but I wouldn't stake thousands of dollars on it). Personally, I'd want an expected period of no more than 10 days/block (~20 TH/s currently) to consider solo mining a good option.

Also of note: your intuition of how any [random](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness) process will work out is very probably very wrong. I'd go for mining in a pool so that I don't have to deal with any large amount of randomness in this process.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: For various machines to make a total of 20 TH/s as a solo miner should these be under 1 address  
> **username_2**: @username_0 No, it doesn't matter whether you use one address or various addresses. There's nothing that tracks how many hashes/second an address is running. In fact, I'd prefer various addresses to add a little anonymity.  

---

