Nano3s in the Real World: Energy Costs, Pool Choices, and Connectivity Hurdles

In the UK, Canaan nano3s viability is hampered by electricity costs, with prices at .2665p per kWh. A UK buyer says it’s just not viable yet, even as they eye different pools ^[1]. They note setups spanning btc, btc cash, and litecoin, highlighting how pool choice and timing shape profitability.

Pool options and ping reality – The discussion orbiting pool setup shows mixed signals. One user questions whether a different pool is needed; another notes ping around 170 ms, fluctuating, and wonders where it should land to avoid rejected shares ^[2]. Ping matters: users report 40-80 ms as typical for mining, while high ping (like 205 ms) can spike rejections depending on the situation ^[2]. Some miners run their own Stratum+TCP server to shave latency to 8 ms, yet rejected shares still hover around the 0.19% mark ^[2].

WiFi reliability and hardware tweaks – Weak WiFi dongles are a recurring pain. The fix many try: place the Nano3s as close as possible to the router, or switch to a wired Ethernet setup to steady ping and shares ^[2].

Pool performance pulses – On the pool side, Powerpool debates show real-world variability: a user reports 0.44% rejected shares on pool side and 0.07% on miner side, a reminder that latency and pool metrics matter for profitability ^[3]. Another miner boasts over 100PH on that pool and calls it legit, underscoring how opinions diverge in 2025 mining circles ^[3].

Closing thought: real-world costs, latency, and setup quirks are shaping what hardware makes sense as crypto mining evolves.

References