Member Info for Hexam

Fleccy - Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm talking about the actual global machine power of miners. As you say, the way this is calculated at the moment (the global hashrate) is from a backward calculation from the number of blocks actually being mined. Therefore it is inevitable that this measure of global hashrate will move up/down as the number of coins mined goes up/down and as difficulty then gets adjusted up/down. This is based though on the ASSUMPTION that more calculations per second equals more BTC mined whereas QBT is all about better (not faster) calculations equals more BTC mined. So the assumption breaks down. However, unless they change the calculation it will indeed show up as an increase in global hashrate but this will not be because the actual hashrate (i.e. number of calculations per second) has increased but because the reported hashrate is still, and inappropriately, just worked backwards from the number of (blocks of) coins mined or - as you put it - "The increase in difficulty would also show as an increase in hashrate, due to the way hashrate is calculated."

I think you misundertand me. Normally if global hashrate goes down then difficulty also naturally goes down - as it did with the China situation - as at the moment it's all about brute force (hashrate). QBT say they are changing this as they are making the existing hashrate much more efficient. Therefore if what they say is true then difficulty will go up even though hashrate stays the same. If as you suggest miners not taking up QBT software stop mining this reduces global hashrate but difficulty will still go up unless enough of them actually stop. If QBT are on the level then the direct relationship between hashrate and difficulty is broken.

It could indeed play out as you suggest Lemmy though to be pedantic the QBT solution doesn't increase hashrate - just makes existing hashrate more efficient. The impact it has on difficulty is the same though. So the fall in global hashrate would be almost inevitable - it's whether difficulty would also fall that is the interesting question.

“In the event that somehow "everyone" did end up using QBT, then:

1) We would all be very rich”

Not if the basis of fees is % of extra BTC mined as nobody would be mining any extra BTC.

As you say though, an unrealistic extreme.

Bfd - Good post, agree with your points regarding revenue impacts. The first one was the most concerning for me as they saw market share fall despite trying to achieve exactly the opposite by keeping prices low, whilst others raised them much more. It backfired and market share fell instead - along with profit. So I agree they probably would have been better off passing on more of the inflation rise.

Let's hope we see the turnaround soon, as you suggest, after such a disappointing year. We'll just have to wait until pre-close now though to find out if they've made a start.

Bfd - I agree with a lot of what you say but do feel they have recently underperformed - after all they were well short of their own expectations and had to significantly reduce their guidance at half-year. They also lagged the market.

Yes, any upward trend in online stats is encouraging but it is only one of many factors. Competition has also increased for example so the market may be increasing but their share of it may not be. Plenty of other factors too and I certainly agree that their pricing strategy hasn't proved great (so far).

All I'm saying is that although we can get clues or signs from more general data it cannot tell us how well BOO are really doing. Only they can tell us - and they won't.

Agreed Reardon - but do you like being called a liar? To try and squirm out of it this time he is now claiming he said he meant the biggest move 'of any November' which of course he didn't. My main point however is exactly what you say - it's NOT BOO specific and I will only judge them on what is - but sadly they have chosen not to update us on their performance.

I know he will but frankly I've had enough. Too many like him on these boards.

You really are priceless. Here are the actual month on month figures and movements for anybody to see with biggest changes marked (*). People can make their own minds up. You can't change facts simply by repeatedly shouting. I'll leave it there.

2017 JAN 16.2 -0.9

2017 FEB 15.2 -1.0

2017 MAR 15.6 0.4

2017 APR 15.2 -0.4

2017 MAY 15.4 0.2

2017 JUN 15.8 0.4

2017 JUL 15.5 -0.3

2017 AUG 15.4 -0.1

2017 SEP 16.0 0.6

2017 OCT 16.5 0.5

2017 NOV 19.9 3.4

2017 DEC 17.9 -2.0

2018 JAN 17.7 -0.2

2018 FEB 16.8 -0.9

2018 MAR 17.3 0.5

2018 APR 17.2 -0.1

2018 MAY 17.5 0.3

2018 JUN 17.5 0.0

2018 JUL 17.1 -0.4

2018 AUG 16.7 -0.4

2018 SEP 17.2 0.5

2018 OCT 18.1 0.9

2018 NOV 21.6 3.5

2018 DEC 19.7 -1.9

2019 JAN 19.3 -0.4

2019 FEB 18.3 -1.0

2019 MAR 18.9 0.6

2019 APR 18.4 -0.5

2019 MAY 18.8 0.4

2019 JUN 18.3 -0.5

2019 JUL 18.7 0.4

2019 AUG 18.1 -0.6

2019 SEP 18.1 0.0

2019 OCT 19.1 1.0

2019 NOV 21.6 2.5

2019 DEC 21.4 -0.2

2020 JAN 20.2 -1.2

2020 FEB 19.1 -1.1

2020 MAR 22.1 3.0

*2020 APR 30.3 8.2

2020 MAY 32.8 2.5

2020 JUN 31.3 -1.5

2020 JUL 28.3 -3.0

2020 AUG 27.0 -1.3

2020 SEP 26.7 -0.3

2020 OCT 29.0 2.3

*2020 NOV 37.2 8.2

*2020 DEC 31.3 -5.9

*2021 JAN 37.8 6.5

2021 FEB 36.5 -1.3

2021 MAR 34.4 -2.1

*2021 APR 30.1 -4.3

2021 MAY 28.5 -1.6

2021 JUN 27.9 -0.6

2021 JUL 28.0 0.1

2021 AUG 27.7 -0.3

2021 SEP 28.3 0.6

2021 OCT 28.9 0.6

2021 NOV 32.8 3.9

2021 DEC 30.5 -2.3

2022 JAN 30.1 -0.4

2022 FEB 27.9 -2.2

2022 MAR 26.3 -1.6

2022 APR 26.5 0.2

2022 MAY 25.7 -0.8

2022 JUN 25.2 -0.5

2022 JUL 24.9 -0.3

2022 AUG 24.4 -0.5

2022 SEP 25.2 0.8

2022 OCT 25.9 0.7

2022 NOV 29.9 4.0

2022 DEC 27.1 -2.8

2023 JAN 27.3 0.2

2023 FEB 25.8 -1.5

2023 MAR 26.1 0.3

2023 APR 25.8 -0.3

2023 MAY 25.7 -0.1

2023 JUN 25.3 -0.4

2023 JUL 26.2 0.9

2023 AUG 25.2 -1.0

2023 SEP 25.6 0.4

2023 OCT 26.3 0.7

*2023 NOV 30.7 4.4

*2024 DEC 27.6 -3.1

Squirming.

Bfd - It's all very well pointing to industry statistics and many posters have done that frequently over the past few years but in that time BOO has seen sales fall and even they were predicting 12% to 17% drop for 2023 in their downgraded guidance. It's BOO performance that matters and for whatever reason they are reluctant to tell us what that is and personally I take little comfort from industry stats when BOO's performance has clearly not been moving in line with them over the last year or so.

I only want to see BOO's figures - it's just a shame they won't tell us.

You said "biggest single move to online" not biggest move from Oct to November. It's not even that anyway - Nov 2020 saw an 8.2% increase.

No apology needed.

"November this year saw the biggest single move to online"

It was the fourth biggest actually. December this year saw the third biggest fall.

Neither means much - unless you like picking cherries.

I agree Carefree that the tide seems to be turning back but to say ‘certainly’ is a bit premature perhaps.

SCB delights though in cherry-picking statistics and even then the cherries picked may or may not be a good indicator of BOO’s performance which is what really matters and it seems something they themselves are reluctant to tell us about. Read into that what you will but it was SCB who reacted far more pessimistically than me to the lack of TU saying it suggested they were missing guidance and that we could see the sp in the 20’s.

I try my best to ignore him now as he is so childish and besides he makes himself look enough of an idiot without any help from me.

“Hexam your quarterly chart is now available!! (I suspect you will revert to saying the month on month is more accurate😂)”

Nope. Just look at the yearly one instead.

Yes, I can see that if it is a sale (as you mention with Dunlop). That's not an IPO though in any way that I can see (just a straightforward sale) so I think the reference you make to an IPO is simply what's confusing me.

"But personal attacks have no place here."

Agreed, but we're all guilty of it at times (even you) - just some much more than others.

Er...I make that 9 posts so far today from Suthy just referring to (alleged) green bars. Strange. I feel double figures coming on...

Bfd - I could be wrong but I don't think that what you are suggesting is possible. I certainly can't think of any other examples. I'm no expert though on corporate structures, but if Wolf is around he might be able to shed some light on it one way or the other as this sounds more up his street. If it is possible then I agree it might make more sense though would imagine it would be quite messy to do.

This bond in today's RNS has a 3p conversion, the other as you say has a 1p conversion (interestingly below the current sp).