Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video here.
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.
“Have QBT ever claimed the Methods increase hash rate? If so, by what amount?”
True for a time but if too many take it up then eventually the additional revenue starts to decrease because of the fixed number of BTC that are mined.
“Have QBT ever claimed the Methods increase hash rate? If so, by what amount?”
It does and it doesn’t. It doesn’t as it does not increase power on the network. HOWEVER the hashrate published for the network isn’t actual power but a backward calculation based on the speed at which BTC are mined.
So for example, taking a the extreme, if all machines accessed method B and it did improve the chances of mining a BTC by 2.6x then the hashrate shown would increase by 2.6x and so would the difficulty.
It’s also unclear whether the 2.6x holds anyway at current difficulty (which is higher than it was when the claim was first made and they said it was based on lower difficulty anyway).
In any event if everybody had the software then nobody would have an advantage as the number of BTC mined is fixed and difficultly would be adjusted to keep it the same.
It only has an impact if there are ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ and preferably not too many ‘haves’
And I think I should start charging you each time you regurgitate my post. Knowing how much you like to repeat posts I could probably make more money that way than I ever could on QBT :-)
“Here is a Question to Hexam, are you fully in. Or do you have a big pile of cash waiting in the side for news?”
I’m in and will probably sell on good news (i.e.a deal or confirmation of results in terms of actual mining) assuming the sp reacts as I expect. Clear enough for you?
"So my Question is Hexam do you really think they will be live testing knowing this is exactly why the miners want with knowing it’s spot on"
They can't know until they've done the testing to mine actual BTC. That's the point of this testing. If it proves that the claim is correct and scalable then we'll be looking at an sp far north of 20p in my view and we'll all be happy. It's the actual results that will convince me though not your hypothesising - no matter how much you try to ram it down our throats.
I am not backpedaling at all. My view has been consistent. This is a stock with potentially huge rewards (as I’ve outlined today, yesterday and well before that).
With that though comes high risk as the claims being made by QBT are spectacular (almost unbelievably so) and we have no way of knowing what the results of the testing are to validate those claims until they are published.
In the meantime I really wish you were ‘lost for words’ and if I’m helping in achieving that then great! :-)
No closer in terms of what that answers might show - not in terms of time obviously. So in other words the risk is the same but the timescale is shorter to when we find out one way or the other.
“So you think carrying out live testing which is what the miners want to see is risky? “
Er...no. Carrying out live testing is what obviously needs to be done. The risk is in what those results will show which is the very point Brew is making and that we are no closer to knowing. It's amazing your capacity to take what someone has written and turn it in to something they are not saying or even implying.
This is a either a very high risk stock or a stock with enormous potential. It's impossible to be both - such things don't exist.
I've said all along the rewards are enormous if the tech works so nothing has changed there. My doubts have always been about the tech working as well as they claim - and if anything those doubts have increased given the time delay and what I thought to be very unconvincing videos. I haven't suddenly gone from troll to uber ramper - just remained an investor with both hopes and doubts in varying degrees.
"The risk was 3 years ago when they started out"
Disagree - I think the risk is very much still there and to answer Brew's question yes, I think it is built into the share price - which is why the share price is so low given the potential rewards. If there was little perceived risk then the price would be 10p, 20p, 30p... who knows?
Yes Brew lots of assumptions. The most important one is how well method B works. 2.6x, not at all, somewhere in between, more?
The others are:
- nature of the deal (fee or % additional BTC mined and the level of these)
- percentage of take up
- future BTC prices
- impact of pooling
- significance of cost base
- appropriate multiple to revenue (or earnings if deduct costs)
- wider stuff like will there be any competitors to QBT in the future bettering what they offer
By giving the assumptions used (explicitly or implicitly) people can adjust if they have a different view on them or just do their own valuation from scratch (not very hard).
Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting the fair value of QBT is 20p. I'm just saying that on the assumptions I've used and stated that a 20p valuation is I think reasonable and that I believe those assumptions are conservative ASSUMING method B works as well as claimed - which is the one assumption that I think is highly questionable and the basis for most of the risk of this investment (and why it is so cheap).
Brew - I did specifically mention the halving i.e. "Even though the halving is coming up which will halve the mining numbers the value of BTC may rise enough to compensate."
Some expect BTC to go over $100k thus negating the difficulty increase from halving, others don't. Take your pick. Note this applies to difficulty increases generally as even in a normal year difficulty usually doubles (so goes up four-fold in a year with a halving) so there is an implicit assumption here that BTC price keeps pace with it which obviously may not be the case.
"Cost to mine BTC is $17,566."
No it isn't. Total cost (not just electricity etc.) is around $50k and this will be over $100k post-halving. So assuming you are talking about ARB it will be miles away from profit post-halving unless BTC soars. And no, they don't mine other coins.