Member Info for fleccy

He'll turn Argentina into a joke. Argentina can't even afford to repay its IMF borrowings as it is, relying on more borrowing from countries like Qatar in order to meet obligations. Any transactions in Crypto, will need conversion to Fiat to pay off any interest on current international loans, and they also wont be able to import/export using BTC since trading partners wont trade using BTC as payment. All these narratives suggesting BTC has value are based on pure fantasy, eventually it'll all end in tears. I'll restate why I believe BTC has no intrinsic value:

BTC is nothing more than a distributed database with rewards generated for processing the Block entries

Once a Block is processed and reward issued, the Block is simply a record containing transactions and the traded Bitcoin value is based purely on the greater fool theory.

The miners rely on reward's, and transaction charges, to finance operations and generate profit; If the price of BTC doesn't double with every halving then the miners only other source of revenue, for maintaining operations, is increasing transaction charges; What happens when the reward is so small the miners only real source of revenue is from transaction charges? Disregarding the fact that the 21 million Bitcoin maximum is fake, and easily overcome with a "Fork", each halving event is a potential nail in the BTC coffin and explains why vested interests push the narrative of ever higher Bitcoin valuations. The sector have to come up with ridiculous potential valuations, like $1 Million dollar per Bitcoin, because they realise that each halving makes mining unsustainable without a doubling in value; Anyone looking into BTC, and having an ounce of common sense, will see that the vested interest narrative inflating the value of Bitcoin is nonsensical, relying on hype and greed for valuation. Could BTC go up to $100K per Bitcoin? Maybe with the hype around US spot ETF's, but all bubbles deflate and BTC is probably the biggest the World has ever seen.

Not a clue. I've just decided to track Off Book vs On Exchange trades out of curiosity.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=1824278197&format=interactive

I like to keep things simple so I average down on my current holdings, and since I hold the view that they're undervalued why wouldn't I keep investing there? I understand the theory of spreading investments to reduce risk, but I don't see any dividend paying stocks with less risk than my current holdings.

As a domestically focused bank Lloyds has less geopolitical risk than HSBC and Standard Chartered, since they aren't exposed to China should Taiwan kick off. Barclays have more global risk due to the Investment banking side of the business, so I'm not currently investing there either.

BT's forward plan is easy to understand, and I disagree with the market narrative knocking them over the debt. I like BT because of the cost cutting potential and the range of assets they hold, it baffles me how the wider market don't see the potential for BT to grow the bottom line.

Vodafone is the riskiest as far as dividend sustainability is concerned and I'm unsure if it will be cut, so I've been reinvesting the Vodafone dividends back into Lloyds or BT until the picture becomes clearer.

From what I've said above you can probably guess I like dividends and loath risk, and while I see my chosen stocks as undervalued I'll keep topping up until they reach what I perceive as fair value.

It'll probably depend on the interest on the debt vs the dividend income. I don't expect he's looking at increasing his stake, I think he bought BT stock because it's cheap. I'm currently hoping it gets a bit cheaper, in the short term, since I'm agonising over a £20,000 ISA top up and where it's going to be invested. I probably would have jumped in already, but I'm hesitating because of the Middle East conflict.

It wouldn't surprise me if they do a new share placing to raise capital, time will tell.

116,050,460 total Volume on Wednesday.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=457705223&format=interactive

Shut up Jambone, I'm only stating the facts. Instead of throwing insults you should defend against the figures I quoted, but you can't because they're correct.

Here's the disclaimer at the end of the video for Method A, similar to the disclaimer at the end of the Method B video:

https://i.postimg.cc/284X8yqw/QBT-disclaimer.jpg

I watched the Youtube video's and the Method A video showed that testing was carried out using 10 leading zero's, for the target hash, the current target has 18 leading zero's and the winning hashes are coming in with 19 leading zero's. I think it's fair to ask how QBT's software will cope with the current difficulty levels? Anyone know the number of leading zero's used in their Method B demo?

The current difficulty level requires much more processing power than the target used in QBT's Method A testing demo.

When people use quotes they should also link to articles relating to the quote.

"LONDON, July 10 (Reuters) - The value of top cryptocurrency bitcoin could reach $50,000 this year and $120,000 by the end of 2024 Standard Chartered (STAN.L) said on Monday, predicting the recent jump in its price could encourage bitcoin "miners" to hoard more of the supply.Standard Chartered published a $100,000 end-2024 forecast for bitcoin back in April on the view the so-called "crypto winter" was over, but one of the bank's top FX analysts, Geoff Kendrick, said there was now 20% "upside" to that call."

https://www.reuters.com/technology/standard-chartered-bumps-up-bitcoin-forecast-120000-2023-07-10/

Standard Chartered are suggesting miners hoarding BTC "could" significantly raise the price of BTC, I don't understand that reasoning myself. The big miners have large operating costs and need to sell their BTC to keep the lights on, some smaller BTC miners, who generate their own electricity through self generation, may be able to hoard but that's unlikely to drive the price up.

Much is also made of companies accepting BTC in exchange for goods, like the recent publicity around Ferrari, but the conversion risk is placed entirely on the purchaser since the conversion to Fiat is done at the point of sale; Lots of BTC holders buying high priced products will drive the price of BTC down, since the company managing the conversion will act in their own interest and not the purchaser.

Clearly the vested interests are desperate for the authorisation of US spot ETF's, since it's a back door way of pulling retail money into the sector under the institutional banner. Retail are currently shunning BTC, with the hype narrative's falling on deaf ears. I view spot ETF's as a way of bailing out big money players.

"Does anyone at BT realise how tiny the margins are on white goods?"

I don't think they'll care, most of the selling will be on-line and I suspect the pitch will be aimed at pushing a connected home strategy. IOT will find it's way into most electricals, and as a reseller EE/BT will have little to lose from putting their name to the goods, and if it's unsuccessful they'll just quietly drop it. It's not unusual for large brands to push unrelated products, Tesco put their name to Solar installation and kitchens for a while and dropped them when it went south.

BT will still exist, it just wont be the retail consumer facing brand, I suspect BT have done this due to EE's mobile brand dominance. Maybe they're looking at mobile/broadband cross selling strategies, and believe EE as a newer brand will carry more weight among their target customer base. BT's competitors regularly describe BT as a dinosaur and a has-been, using advertising strategies knocking BT's legacy history wont be effective against a newer brand like EE. Personally I don't see a problem for BT, as EE is already a well recognised brand among the majority of the UK's population.

Plusnet no longer offer a mobile service, but there's no indication that they'll stop selling broadband. I suspect BT will retain Plusnet as a no frills budget Broadband seller.

“ So you have the Openreach phenomenon. I don’t know anywhere [else] in the world where ‘an Openreach’ exists. That’s the creation of the regulator back in the late-90s, and the result is nobody can compete, so you ended up with a significant market power — a re-regulated entity. ”

“ Our competitor is not a fully integrated model; it is a wholesale model. Therefore, building a scale wholescale competitor is the only way to introduce competition to Openreach. ”

https://www.telcotitans.com/infrawatch/ceo-interview-cityfibre-on-manda-watch-competition-bottlenecks-bt-economic-rationale-questioned/7300.article

I'm on a DB pension, but it's capped at 4.235%. If inflation stayed around 10%, the state pension would overtake my DB pension after a number of years. The problem with inflation is that it'll bankrupt the country if it stays high, alternatively it could put the state pension at risk if the Government decides to withdraw it, or more likely the triple lock will go with a cap replacing it.

"Starlink direct to Cell is announced. Text in 2024, voice, data and IOT connections 2025"

Maybe if you're in the middle of nowhere with only a few mobiles in the area, and good line of sight with the satellite being virtually overhead. 5G uses technology like Massive MIMO to support high mobile density areas, Cell phased array antenna's work to give directional gain for individual mobile devices, the cells aren't 550km away from the handset and also aren't travelling at around 6m/s. One way that they might be able to reliably use satellites with 5G, is to use a terrestrial cell and backhaul via LEO satellites, another possibility is to use HAP's in conjunction with LEO's to provide service. I don't see cell to LEO mobile service being reliable for standard handsets, current satphone's are specialised devices designed to use LEO and geostationary satellites.

"Traditional banking and fiat currency will fade out over time. Digital currencies and borderless payments are the way forward."

Can anyone explain how this will happen? People seem to forget that SVB's institutional Crypto investors/depositors were bailed out by Central Banks, who was there to bail out Crypto enthusiasts and investors when FTX failed?

The reason unbacked crypto will fail, is because there's no institutional backer guaranteeing transactions and giving protections. A flawed system of unbacked crypto wont wash away 100's of years of proven traditional banking and finance, it just wont happen.

We've discussed the difference between Fiat and Crypto previously, one is backed by Central Banks, Governments and the Economy of the issuer, with the other backed by absolutely nothing. Look at the Crypto Exchanges, they create their own Tokens out of thin air and somehow the assign an inflated value; I'm talking Tokens like FTC and BNB, then there's Dogecoin which was created as a joke and subsequently talked up by Musk.

I can see the point of Tokens associated with and used to trade commodities, with the token representing something real and goods exchanged and transacted within the Blockchain. A Crypto Token is basically a database entry and could be used to record transactions of something that's real, but Crypto is basically worthless in itself, unless it represents something real like an ounce of Gold or Barrel of Oil.

I'm amazed anyone still believes in Crypto as anything but a scam. I watched the video linked to below, "The Collapse Of FTX: Insiders Tell All | CNBC Documentary", and people lost a lot of money but still defended Crypto as an investment. The FTX recovery lawyers and accountants are raking it in at around $1.5 Million a day, so it's clear who the real winners are. Somehow the investors blame SBF instead of focusing on their own bad decisions to invest in a wild west unregulated investment; One guy sold his claim for 11 cents on the Dollar and said he was going to reinvest the payout on more crypto, it wouldn't surprise me if he loses his payout too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqwGt69pDXQ

I actually feel sorry for people who lose money on casino investments, but they need to see crypto for what it is, manufactured assets with no intrinsic real world value, or use.

I don't do predictions on share price, if I was interested in that game I'd join the Vodafone weekly game. The only time I'm interested in the price is when I'm looking at adding. Truth be told, I prefer the price to drop rather than climb when I'm looking at topping up, since I get more stock for my money. Funnily enough I'm in that position now, so I'm currently routing for stocks to fall. Ideally I'd like to see BT drop below £1.10 in the short term.