They do not increase the chances by mining for a longer period with a lower hashrate, but also, no one is losing money, I am not sure why are you taking the time factor out of the equation when you are hashing against x for x period.

To put this in a simpler form, when you pay 100$ you get 100 shares, in other worse, 100 shots to solve a block, whether you take those chances in 1 minute or over the course of 10 days it makes exactly no difference, the chances of those 100 shares hitting a block remain the same.

What really matters here is the TOTAL NUMBER of shares you submit, not how FAST you submit them, every share is an independent event that has the ability to be a block solver, if what you think is true then mining pools would operate in a different manner.

Binance and Viabtc will join forces to increase their hashrate, say each has 10EH worth of hashrate, they would mine for Binance wallet with 20EH for 12 hours, and then 20EH for Viabtc wallet for the remaining 12 hours, and then at the end of the day, they would end up with more coins than having mined individually for 24 hours with 10EH each, that is not true by any means.

The fact is, that 20EH produced 20EH per second for 12 hours which is the same number of shares that 2*10EH*24 hours, you are missing a major point here which is the power you rent is sold as in Hashes per SECONDS.

And as for the Gambler's fallacy, it has nothing to do with why OP's initial numbers are correct,  not sure why he agreed to your claim and changed the post.


If anyone still thinks that 50PH for 3 hours doesn't have the exact same chances of hitting a block with 25PH for 6 hours, go ahead and email all the large 10 pools that make up 90% of the hashrate and tell them you found a cheat code for mining, let them join their 300EH together and mine to one wallet every 24/10 hours so they can increase their chances of hitting blocks and end up with more BTC by the end of the month.