Member Info for Hexam

True Alex but it's a meaningless comparison. Could easily pick another totally unrelated company and talk about how it's now gone bust. Doesn't mean BOO will go bust - doesn't mean anything. BOO could follow the lead of RR or follow that of CINE. There is no reason to connect BOO to either and if the argument for BOO taking off is 'Well, Rolls did it, so can we' then that's not something I'd be very encouraged by (and I say that as a very happy Rolls holder from below 80p).

"I believe ARB have a lot of Intel machines"

They have just under 3,000 so hardly a lot - enough to mine around 10 or so BTC a month. More than enough to notice a difference within weeks though if all using Method B and that works as claimed. ARB would be a prime candidate to hook up with given their dire, almost hopeless, financial situation but would have thought we would have heard something by now if they were actually mining BTC with somebody on a meaningful number of machines (especially if it was ARB given how leaky their boat has been in the past).

I don't know if they are 'live testing' now (regardless of the videos) or what they actually mean by 'live testing' (and that debate has been done to death already on here). All I'm interested in is the results from actual mining with the software as those are the only figures that really count.

"Nobody has ever said anything different"

That's certainly not true. Some keep insisting that most of the risk has now gone. It's a huge risk, huge reward stock and it will stay that way until there is definitive news - one way or the other.

I think some people must be looking at a wonky chart. BTC hasn’t moved out of about a $1k range in the last 24 hours - nowhere near 5% at any point. No fireworks today I’m afraid.

"Nobody will answers this funnily enough"

It's been answered many times but you just dismiss the answers and keep asking the same question over and over again.

"So it was a pointless post then."

You are clearly incapable of reading. I only posted to correct a misrepresentation about what I had said. I have no interest in getting into yet another endless pointless debate about whether the 2.6x claim proves valid or not. We shall see soon enough.

"Their posts used to be so positive with the company"

No they weren't. I think you mistake me for someone else.

I have little IT knowledge and freely admit to that. My reasons for disbelieving the 2.6x will be replicated in real life have nothing to do with IT but instead my interpretation of all the other indications as I see them - which I could list (again) but this would just been seen as trolling and rightfully so.

My post wasn't meaningless, I was just correcting something quoted about me which was very misleading as I hadn't said what I was claimed to have said.

I do not believe they will be able to replicate anywhere near 2.6x in real life, others like Jambone, do. Fair enough, it's just a different view and shouldn't be anything to get excited or upset about. We will soon see anyway who is right soon enough and only then can bragging rights be claimed. Until then it's all opinion and hot air.

"Hexam said 20p is on the low side, he isn’t a ramper by a long shot."

To be clear I said I feel 20p is on the low side IF there is a news of a deal AND that deal is based on the 2.6x being proved true.

My own view, and it is just my personal view, is that I don't believe for one minute that the 2.6x will be replicated in reality. So whilst there may be some kind of deal I think it will be based on something much less and so the sp will be much lower. But if I am wrong and the rampers' belief ends up being fully justified then 20p will indeed seem very cheap to me.

For goodness sake Jambone. I'm not saying the cost doubles! Are you just being obtuse now?

If halving happened today:

Yes - electricity will cost the same

Yes - Staff costs remain the same

Yes - Machines costs stay the same

BUT

Yes - you only get HALF the reward.

So YES the cost of mining overall doesn't change BUT the cost of mining each coin DOUBLES as you are spending the same cost producing half as many coin. So cost same but unit cost doubles. In in other words your total cost stays the same but revenue halves.

What BTC price does who knows. It probably will go up but it needs to double as well to offset the impact of the loss in revenue of only mining half the number of BTC.

What I find really odd is that you are ready to trust unquestioned my valuation which you keep promoting but the much more basic calculation of mining costs per BTC you try to ridicule?

*spread over five years

I've unfiltered thePain just to see what nonsense he is writing and basically the research he references only includes cash costs (this is clearly indicated). These cash costs exclude what goes through the accounts for the machines (the cost of new machines is spread over fives typically and appears in the non-cash cost depreciation). It also excludes stock-based compensation which is significant for miners. Only by adding these two items in will you get the overall cost that determines profit.

I have committed no 'schoolboy' error as I agree and have stated that the costs remain the same. It is the number of coins mined that changes. The same costs divided by only half the number of coins means the cost of mining PER BITCOIN doubles. It really is that simple and I'm just amazed that you still don't get it.

As the costs remain the same but the number of coins mined halves so the cost of mining each coin doubles.

As I said - look to the accounts as these are the source figures that can be relied upon rather than a third party's view of them. I've attached CLSK's latest quarter and you also need to know that they mined 2019 BTC in that quarter.

Double your answer and you should get $80k (CLSK view is another efficient one).

https://investors.cleanspark.com/news/news-details/2024/CleanSpark-Reports-First-Quarter-FY2024-Financial-Results/default.aspx

In fact looking at the table on the link you posted I'm not sure what costs they've included as the numbers look strange with MARA's in particular looking ridiculous compared to the others. They are one of the most efficient miners-cost wise (largely because of their scale) but are shown on the graph as one of the worst. I'm almost certain the numbers exclude depreciation (so basically assuming the machines are free) and given the variations do not allow properly for one-offs.

Basically a joke set of numbers which shows the value of sense checking the figures on any link before you post it.

Jambone - Do yourself a favour and actually do some numbers yourself based on published accounts and don't rely on third party numbers which are often wrong or do not include all the costs.

The link you posted I presume only includes electricity costs (as that quoted by Brew did).

As for Bob's number he clearly just said block by mistake in the $112k. The link refers to BTC.

Mystic's $90k is bang on and anybody with a passing knowledge of miners will know this.

In other words both Mystic and Bob are broadly correct.

The cost of mining BTC is around $40k to $50k per coin and will rise to $80k to 100k post-halving. This can be checked simply by looking at the regular costs (i.e. excluding one-offs) in the latest accounts of each miner and dividing through by BTC mined. For example for MARA in Q3 it was $39k for CLSK the latest figure is $40k whereas ARB is at the other end of the scale at $47k (though probably over $50k now with increasing difficulty since last results).

Brew - the $17k you quote for Terrawulf is for only their direct costs (e.g. electricity) and ignores staff costs, depreciation and other overheads.

So all miners need a significant rise in BTC post-halving to remain profitable which makes QBT all the more appealing if Method B works in practice as well as they claim it does in theory.

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree Bob.

If 1% of the network adopts Method B and Method B does gives a probability of 2.6 times that of a 'ordinary' machine in finding a BTC then I think those machines will mine 2.56x the BTC that they did before (i.e. an additional 156% of BTC). If it's 10% then the figure drops to 2.24x and if it's 50% it drops to 1.44x.

We obviously just have a different way of approaching/calculating it or of understanding what their 2.6x statement actually means.

Sorry - my last post was responding to the suggestion that more machines that get added the bigger the slice of revenue.