Member Info for fleccy

They just love kicking BT, so I'm not sure why the market reacts the way it does.

I'm amazed that people see any value in Bitcoin, since it serves no substantive purpose and is inherently flawed in so many ways.

Anyone with the relevant coding skills can create their own Blockchain, Dogecoin was created as a joke and is proof that there's nothing special about decentralised proof of work Crypto's like Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin scarcity limit is an artificial limit coded into the algorithm, but it is purely a limit under control of the developers. Each Bitcoin can be subdivided in Satoshi's and there's nothing stopping the developers further subdividing Satoshi's into ever smaller tokens as required.

Bitcoin is rubbish for processing transactions as it can only process 1Mb of data every 10 minutes, and the store of value (Digital Gold) narrative/comparison is based purely on belief and ignores all the different real world use cases for Gold.

With each halving the block reward for Miners halves, so in the absence of the Bitcoin price significantly increasing, miners will rely on transaction charges to sustain their profits. Technology advancements can only go so far toward increasing mining efficiency, so there'll be a tipping point where on-grid Bitcoin mining will become unprofitable and unsustainable.

The higher the Bitcoin price climbs, the more the selling pressure and profit taking. It stands to reason that most of the HODLers will at least try and recoup their initial investment once the Bitcoin price passes a certain point, but once the herd decides to sell it could easily turn into stampede for the exit, it happened in November 2021.

Aus I simply contributed to the conversation. I've previously done my own self assessments as required and in previous years, before completing the online Self Assessment, I've correctly calculated any taxes and rebates due. It isn't Rocket Science to work out your taxable income and allowances.

I made it clear that I wasn't giving financial advice, so it can't have been removed for anything I said. Abject, why is it "better if it’s removed from public viewing now".

Vectors and dimensions seem to be the proposed solution, whether or not that'll remain the future case might come down to AI; This is a huge threat to decentralised Crypt blockchain's, since all the information is exchanged in the public domain whereas Quantum safe'ish encryption, exchanged via Quantum secure private networks using technology like (QKD), would add far more levels of security to safeguard against bad actors. There's probably no place for sensitive decentralised data in a Quantum enabled World.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UrdExQW0cs

LTI you should up your medication, you're getting angry about things you shouldn't get angry about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evlrs5Bi_6E

"strange how you thought that there was any relationship"

I simply used RR as a good example to make my point, in 2019 the Market Cap of RR was £16.1 Billion and they paid a dividend of 11.7p a share, today they have a market cap of £35.9 Billion with no dividend, 4 times as many shares in issue and a lower EPS with Revenue around 2019 levels; Clearly Rolls Royce has benefited from momentum trades and the market is ignoring the increased number of shares in issue. I don't disagree that the higher the EPS the better, all I'm saying is that the market creates its own narrative to push stock prices wherever it wants.

"Fleecy said BTC was going below $10k , .

I stand by my prediction of between 50p - £1. Qbt has delivered it’s probably through R&D, now into live testing ."

Sooty the thing with Bitcoin is that its free floating without any real world anchor, it isn't tied to any commodity that serves any purpose within society. The driving forces behind Bitcoin's price is FOMO and hype, so the price could go anywhere over time. If people like Michael Saylor, Cathie Wood and other Whales keep selling/buying between each other, then there's no limit to how high it go; For the same reason there's no limit to how low the Bitcoin price can drop, when FOMO and hype runs out and the herd turns toward taking profits. The reason the vested interests pushed for US ETP's to be approved, was so that they could pull in cash via the backdoor from investors who wouldn't dream of going near speculative assets like Crypto, but they wouldn't necessarily know where their cash is invested if they're in a fund that takes a position in one of the new ETP's.

If you read QBT's releases slowly, taking in the detail, the probability improvements they talk about are based on lab testing and not on real world mining. Because of the super high brute force number crunching hashing power and difficulty level of the current BTC network, in my opinion anything QBT do in the lab would be irrelevant in real world live mining; Think of lab testing as a one legged man riding a tricycle, and the live BTC network miners as Formula1's racing along a perpetual straight, the only way the one legged man can keep up is if the tricycle is upgraded to a Formula1 racing car.

LTI clearly market valuations are based on various factors, fundamentals and shares in issue for solid companies doesn't appear to currently carry much weight. I would suggest sentiment and momentum is what's driving valuations for various stocks, Rolls Royce is clearly benefiting from the momentum trade for whatever reason. When you look at articles reasoning RR's climb they talk about growth in earnings, but ignore the fact that the earnings have grown from a low covid base. It's obvious that narratives are currently the driving force behind many stock valuations, but the financial media shape the narrative to suit their own vested interests. First they say interest rates are too low for Banks to make a profit, due to low net interest margin, then interest rates rise and they say interest rates are too high and defaults will cripple the bank profits, they just make it up as they go along.

LTI I find it offensive when you describe my views as idiotic, when I make valid points, it makes me wonder if you're somewhere on the autism spectrum since you seem blinkered and unable to take on other people's point of view, and get abusive when you can't offer a valid argument against their opinion.

LTI

"ffs - Have you STILL to learn - Buybacks will increase the price per share relartive to what it would otherwise be."

That is speculative and an unknown. Lloyds could have made limited buybacks to cover the Block listings, like they did under AHO and the price per share could still have been around the current 52p, with Lloyds having a higher Market Cap. In July 2015 there were over 71 Billion shares in issue, yet the price per share was over 80p, so evidence suggests that the link between shares in issue and the stock price aren't directly correlated; Look at Rolls Royce in March 2019, there were 1.9 Billion shares in issue and the stock price was in the region of 310p, today RR have 8.4 Billion shares in issue with a share price of 426p; No doubt people will speculate that RR's prospects are so much better now, but it was only really covid that battered RR and loaded them up with more debt, effectively putting the company on its knees.

However the market decides to value shares, it doesn't appear to be based purely on the number of shares in issue, historic pricing for Lloyds and RR shares proves that.

I would argue that the share buyback's have zero impact on the price of the stock, since the market's no longer appear to value stock's on fundamentals. The Government are either incompetent, or they're dancing to the tune of their masters in City; The best they can come up with is the British ISA, what a complete joke and waste of time. The Government should be pulling every lever to encourage domestic investment into UK stocks, like dropping the British ISA and raising the ISA limit on the standard ISA, but restricting ISA's to UK listed stocks only. They should also give other tax incentives for domestic institutional investment into UK stocks, but they either don't care or they're clueless.

"The reasons for this dramatic shift are multifaceted. The allure of higher returns from investments overseas has increasingly drawn investors away from the UK market. Additionally, changes in pension fund regulations have prompted a cautious move towards less risky assets, diminishing the appeal of equities generally. As domestic investors retreat from the UK market, foreign investors have stepped in to fill the void, with their share of the UK market soaring to 57.7% by the end of 2022, up from 30.7% in 1998"

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/uk-shares-lse-scm-direct-b1148409.html

You have to wonder why the Government is scared to encourage UK investors to invest in their home country, it's as if they want the UK stock market to fail.

"It’s very telling when even the pension fund for Britain's MPs and Ministers invests a mere 1.7% in UK-listed companies, which appears to indicate they do not have confidence in UK equities and companies. A catch 22 situation."

I'm voting Reform at the next Election, I'm disillusioned with both Labour and Conservative politicians, I believe the country needs a radical shakeup.

Jambone, like all good fiction you've taken something that's true and embellished it to give it your own spin. For example it's true that Intel discontinued the Blockscale ASIC, but to suggest QBT couldn't have released results for testing using the chip is purely speculative. If QBT could have produced real world live test results, based on mining using Blockscale, then they would have already done so.

Why would OBT have focused their product based purely on Blockscale, when Bitmain have dominated the market before and after Intel marketed Blockscale? And couldn't QBT use existing Blockscale based mining rigs, to prove their Method's work at current Network hashrate and difficulty, while developing their software to work on Bitmain based mining rigs?

Your Jack Dorsey claim is speculative, and is based purely on speculation by people with a vested interest in pumping QBT; You should produce hard evidence to back up your speculative claims, because the NDA excuses are wearing thin; Also I don't see why NDA's would stop miners and QBT at least officially declaring an association, but even that appears to be cloaked in secrecy for some unknown reason.

As far as I can tell, from what I've read, all QBT's claims are based on lab results using test data with no real world results currently available; I'll happily admit to being wrong, if you can show me any proof to the contrary from sources other than QBT, like any miners admitting to using QBT's software and getting results in line with the claims.

Jambone, I'm surprised you didn't mention QBT's secret lab at Hogwarts where Horace Slughorn, aided by Filius Flitwick, is working on Method D; It wouldn't be any less speculative, and fictionalised, than some of the content in your 10:03 post

The current Total Voting rights are 63,716,020,308.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1812824850&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1451011517&format=interactive

I thought this thread was about the Class Action, for a minute I thought I was on the Lloyds chat page.

I filtered Mandy because the vast majority of his posts were focused on wild theories of BT being taken over, and some sort of fantasy paranoia about this share chat being controlled by the CWU. I used to be in the CWU and left in 2019, when I retired; We didn't have collective bargaining at CWC/Vodafone, but I joined the CWU as an insurance policy in case I ever needed legal representation.

Unlike the Altnets BT isn't a one trick pony, they've merged Global and Enterprise to create BT Business, with EE now the combined Mobile and previous stand alone consumer business. Openreach alone is probably worth more than BT's financial debt and lease liabilities combined, with Lease Liabilities really an operating cost rather than true debt, so the market is clearly undervaluing BT's assets.

"BT and Global, the Media & Entertainment Group, have today announced a 10-year partnership to upgrade the nation’s legacy payphones and roll out more digital hubs for local communities – in a move that will provide better connectivity and hyper-local advertising in more than 200 towns and cities across the UK. Global will also continue to represent BT’s street furniture advertising sales for the next decade."

https://global.com/global-news/bt-and-global-announce-10-year-digital-out-of-home-partnership/

Aus I never suggested I have experience in the subject, nor did I mention anything about blown Fibre. I gave a common sense answer and discussed some details of a conversation I had with a contractor. Obviously if Openreach can't access the property, via existing ducting or overhead, then it'd be a bespoke solution based on a survey and a conversation between the surveyor and the home owner; How much that'd cost, or whether the homeowner would be asked to contribute, is unknown and probably depends on the work required.

"So a fibre connection to my home, I think requires a dig, through my driveway, garden and possibly part of my street."

Many connections will be overhead, or already ducted, so should be easy. I doubt Openreach would excavate someone's driveway unless the customer agreed it was at their own risk. They'd probably try and find a route that doesn't involve excavation in tarmac or concrete, maybe along a sidewall leading to and adjoining the house wall.

I live on a gated development and BT ducts were installed when the houses were built; A contractor for Openreach recently did a survey and I was surprised to learn that the copper cable outside the development isn't ducted, but dug in along a verge; The contractor advised that they're looking at installing more Telegraph poles along the road, outside the development, to supply FTTP. CityFibre have already microtrenched a good portion of the road, with small access boxes outside each property, but they'll have to access the properties by excavating whereas Openreach will likely go overhead from the new poles.

Aus I believe the total figure Patourel's lawyers are chasing is £1.3 Billion; It isn't an insignificant sum, but it wont bankrupt BT if the full award is granted.

A substantial/biggest portion of the full award is relying on the court awarding compensation to split purchase customers up to the trial start date in 2024, which would go against OFCOM's decision to class such customers as well engaged and able to search out competitive deals online.

BT is one of the most regulated companies on the planet, OFCOM limit their wholesale pricing offered to competitors and basically tell BT/Openreach how high to jump; There's a good argument that court's shouldn't be involved in deciding pricing for such a highly regulated entity, in view of the regulatory thumb BT are under. Something else, to suggest that Landlines are a market in their own right is flawed, since other options are available like Mobiles and services from other CP's, who BT have no control over, you could argue that classing Landlines as its own market is opinion and not fact. The reason other CP's followed BT's landline rental increases is because they don't actually want landline customers, and therefore raised prices to discourage that class of customer transferring service to them from BT. If the CAT do award Split Purchase customers compensation, then they've basically overruled OFCOM's classification of that type of customer and decided BT's pricing going forward for that type of service.

I'd be surprised if the CAT include Split Purchase customers for compensation, should BT lose, since they'd be saying they have more expertise than OFCOM in deciding regulatory matters in relation to BT's pricing; So my guess would be around £600 Million maximum, if BT loses.

In my opinion BT should win this case, since they've only been dancing to OFCOM's tune and doing as they're told. If OFCOM hadn't ordered BT to reduce prices then there wouldn't even be a case, since the case against BT is based purely on the fact that BT voluntarily reduced prices on OFCOM's instruction.