Member Info for fleccy

"So fleecy, when QBT announce we are commercial and have our algorithms with selected partners then will you buy in on that PRN/RNS?"

No, I'm philosophically opposed to DeFi, Crypto like Bitcoin, and anything related. I see Bitcoin as a huge con driven by hype; It's a bit like the Titanic, the community thinks it's unsinkable and are either partying while it's approaching the Iceberg, or it's already hit the Iceberg in 2021 and the compartments are slowly filling below decks, it's just a matter of time before it goes under, in my opinion.

"@fleecy. Your logic doesn't stand. If QBT algorithm improves to say 4 minutes per block while those on the old algorithm at still at 10 minutes per block you are correct that the difficulty would increase to bring the difficulty level to 10 minutes per block"

It's fleccy not fleecy, and although I respond to posters who don't use the correct username, I question their motives for arguing against the points I'm making.

If the top 25 miners all used QBT's algorithm, and installed it on the same day, then they'll all initially/potentially see a huge increase in their Bitcoin Block production rate; At the next difficulty change, the difficulty algorithm will reduce that efficiency gain because it'll bring the overall Hashrate back to the pre-software installation level, so the miners will lose a significant proportion of the initial software related efficiency gain. If all Bitcoin miners used the algorithm then there'd be no gain attributable to the software at all, since the difficulty algorithm will completely nullify it.

"Lloyds is down 2% YTD. qbt up 50% YTD..

I know where my £1m should be ;) could have earned 10 years worth of dividends in a couple of months"

That would rely on your timing for buying and selling QBT, whereas Lloyds dividends are paid irrespective of the share price, and you can purchase more shares with your dividend reinvestment if the price drops.

"@Fleecy it's not that you are totally incorrect it's your logic from that which is flawed. The 260% improvement stands regardless of the level of difficulty"

Not really, think of it like this:

Lets imagine QBT commercially release their algorithm with every significant miner installing it, and the overall Bitcoin Mining block production rate comes down from 10 minutes per block to under 5 minutes per block; The Bitcoin mining difficulty algorithm will interpret that as a significant increase in the Hashrate, so within a 2 to 4 weeks it will adjust the difficulty level to bring the block production rate back to 10 minutes per block. Much will depend on how many miners add the software and when they add it, but the more the software is utilised the more the difficulty algorithm will work to push back against it. If all the big miners used the software, any efficiency benefit would be quickly nullified, whether that's bitcoin block production rate or energy savings.

" I believe Lloyds went down to 19p on the last crash."

I'd like that, I could buy more and get more dividends going forward. I love dividend reinvestment while prices are low, compounded dividend reinvestment is the gift that keeps on giving.

"But logic says that the algorithm would become a necessity to be competitive and the 260% improvement on current algorithms would still stand"

It could potentially improve the efficiency of individual miners, if it was limited to a selective few; But if every large miner used the software and saw a substantial increase in efficiency, then the difficulty algorithm would quickly nullify any efficiency increase. The miners could just as easily agree on not using specific efficiency algorithms, and be better off for it going forward.

Jambone the big miners are in a hardware race to build the highest Hashrate; They may all decide to use QBT's algorithm, but they'd be no better of for using it within a month of installing it, due to the difficulty level adjustment.

Jambone, no amount of bluster from you can change the FACTS I've posted. If you think anything I've posted is incorrect, tell us what? You wont be able to find anything, because I'm careful to check before I post.

"As for short lived, that’s your view and again I’m sure those at QBT know much better what is going on rather the ghe google King and your negative stance"

You're correct I do search Google for information but I've never claimed to be an expert, just someone who's taken some to time to understand the basic mechanism controlling the Bitcoin mining process.

I've said it before:

10 minutes per Block

Difficulty level adjustment every 2016 Blocks (Approximately every 2 weeks)

Halving every 210,000 Blocks mined ( Approximately every 4 years)

Since the difficulty level adjusts to maintain 10 minutes per Block production rate, it's common sense to assume that an increase in efficiency will result in an increase in the difficulty level and nullify the increase in efficiency.

"£4.5million to be saved on energy costs on 1000 miners per year which again is great"

It's 100,000 miners, not 1000.

"To illustrate this, a mining farm - with 100,000 miners(1) - would save up to $4.5 million per year when applying Method B and only considering the impact of the reduced energy consumption."

"(1) Assumptions are nominal 100 Th/s hashing power, 3050W energy consumption per miner and cost of electricity of 0.04 $/kWh."

They're possibly talking about the Bitmain S19 Pro for their example figures.

Just to add some context:

100,000 miners at 100 Th/s = 10 Exahash

Riot is the number 1 Bitcoin miner with a Hashrate of around 10.5 Exahash.

Just to finish, if QBT's figures are correct and all the big miners utilised their algorithm, the difficulty algorithm would adjust within 2 to 4 weeks to bring the block production rate back down to 10 minutes per block, so efficiency gains would likely be short lived.

I don't understand why they aren't testing their using real time data, surely they could just split their test rigs 50/50 and commercially mine Bitcoin on half the rigs using their algorithm and half without; That way they'd have real time comparison data using the current difficulty level, can anyone explain to me why this isn't the case?

"On the free cash front I see that India is playing up again … Cash-strapped Vodafone Idea (Vi) has paid only 10% of its licence fee dues for the March quarter"

Vodafone wrote down their India investments to zero years ago, I suspect Vodafone will be reluctant to direct capital, external to India, into the company. If Vodafone have any remaining India assets separate from VI, they may sell them and direct any funds into VI, but VOD have probably already divested of all their India assets. Without actually making a lot of noise about it, Vodafone appear to have washed their hands of India, the probable reasons are Vodafone's history of litigation with the Indian Government, who retrospectively changed laws to extract money from Vodafone, and the actions of the India government/regulators to give Jio a massive leg up at the expense of other Telecom players. It appears the India Government saw Vodafone as a cash cow, who they could milk at will.

Vodafone still have a shared ownership in VI, along with Aditya Birla Group and the Indian Government, so should VOD decide to direct more capital into VI, the other shareholders would also need to contribute.

Nothing currently wrong as far as I can tell.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/QBT:LON

Disregard my last post, that's just the link, you can still search Google Finance for LON:QBT.

Not sure what's going on with Google Finance, but the ticker for QBT seems reversed:

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/QBT:LON

QBT:LON

"Hi everyone, does anyone know how I can see a daily chart, I'm in clon also and they have a chart I can follow but this doesn't, do I need to do something my end."

What do you need from the chart?

Daily High, Low, Close

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTzEFi1PoMev9Mwbnd2LkayNkkNxSnnqhUUXEWgqnsq9PRoUSedNxWYlE-6zAEoeCTQLk5WXdCmi_4x/pubchart?oid=1937898192&format=interactive

Daily Volumes

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTzEFi1PoMev9Mwbnd2LkayNkkNxSnnqhUUXEWgqnsq9PRoUSedNxWYlE-6zAEoeCTQLk5WXdCmi_4x/pubchart?oid=2085752711&format=interactive

Weekly Volumes:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTzEFi1PoMev9Mwbnd2LkayNkkNxSnnqhUUXEWgqnsq9PRoUSedNxWYlE-6zAEoeCTQLk5WXdCmi_4x/pubchart?oid=903223882&format=interactive

It's ok offering 100% mortgages in a rising market, but the problems start if there's a large correction in property prices, especially if a recession should bite at the same time.

Lloyds Bank policy is:

"For UK mortgages, the Group’s policy permits owner occupier

applications with a maximum LTV of 95 per cent. This can

increase to 100 per cent for specific products where additional

security is provided by a supporter of the applicant and held on

deposit by the Group. Applications with an LTV above 90 per cent

are subject to enhanced underwriting criteria, including higher

scorecard cut-offs and loan size restrictions.

Buy-to-let mortgages within Retail are limited to a maximum loan

size of £1,000,000 and 75 per cent LTV. Buy-to-let applications

must pass a minimum rental cover ratio of 125 per cent under

stressed interest rates, after applicable tax liabilities. Portfolio

landlords (customers with four or more mortgaged buy-to-let

properties) are subject to additional controls including evaluation

of overall portfolio resilience.

The Group’s policy is to reject any application for a lending

product where a customer is registered as bankrupt or insolvent,

or has a recent County Court Judgment or financial default

registered at a CRA used by the Group above de minimis

thresholds. In addition, the Group typically rejects applicants

where total unsecured debt, debt-to-income ratios, or other

indicators of financial difficulty exceed policy limits."

The quality of Lloyds Mortgage book is:

"Total loans and advances increased to £312.7 billion

(31 December 2021: £308.8 billion), with a small reduction in

average LTV to 41.6 per cent (31 December 2021: 42.1 per cent).

The proportion of balances with a LTV greater than 90 per

cent increased to 1.4 per cent (31 December 2021: 0.5 per cent).

The average LTV of new business decreased to 61.7 per cent

(31 December 2021: 63.3 per cent)"

It seems Lloyds Bank have been quite prudent in lending money, long may it continue.

"Cripes, the posts are 'mixed up'!"

And out of date, have you been asleep?

I think he was referring to Walter Pidgeon, who died many years ago, implying that it'll never arrive.

Nope still only allows one space between characters, it makes it awkward when posting in table data, and mixes things up somewhat.

Awesome, I wonder if they've sorted out some of the other text formatting issues. Previously you could only put one space between characters, i'll test to see if it'll now allow multiple space characters:

T E S T