Member Info for lemmyaquid

@bitcoinbull
"China bans many things doesn’t mean they don’t happen in China . "

True, but that doesnt mean that any investment made there cannot dissappear in the blink an eye at the whim of the authorities there.

@Addisonshare.
I'm in agreement that we all need patience, R&D, verification. legalities, contract negotiations (esp re NDAs) etc all take an annoyingly long time, and that it is unlikely that we will now see any developments before christmas / new year, partly because people will want to take a little time out and everything slows down anyway at this time of year.
Re youre surmise that Asia/China is the way to go for deals, whilst of course not ruling this out, the very fact that China has a ban on bitcoin mining would make any deal there precarious at the least. And why not deal with American companies? Yes many are struggling in the current climate, but that in itself would be an incentive for them to use a successful optimisation. The important thing here is that any such deals do not include any deep financial tie ins with such companies that may become in themselves a liability to QBT, but remain as straight forward supply arrangements that bring in revenue as long as the company is mining bitcoin, but from which QBT can walk away from unscathed in the event of a company failure.

Probably depends on who with and on what terms.

@Addisonshare
Agro Blockchain are not listed on AIM

If you believe that the technicals hold promise, as I do, then even if the share price does drop down below 1p prior to release of the information that we are waiting for, I dont think that is something to worry about, this is what the markets do, especially in volatile times such as these. An opportunity to get in or average down though.

I have wondered about this before, Bitcoinbull. I supose the question it poses, is ratcheting up the bitcoin miner arms race good for QBT or not?
If QBT can regularly incrementally improve its software, then maybe yes, if not...?

Largely in agreement with Bitcoinbull here, Argo Blockchain has been serially mismanaged, is not what they claim to be, " a leading miner", and is at risk of collapse. Any potential deal with them should be conducted at the end of a very long bargepole, and any sort of "partnership" should be out of the question.
However, if QBT software could "save" Argo, then this could be a huge opportunity for QBT to introduce its products to the the mining world. If QBT could allow Argo to use its software (as a customer), and at little cost to itself then the risks posed by a possible Argo bancruptcy at least would not be calamitous from a financial point of view, though the reputational aspect does need to be considered.

Tyke68
Not sure if I see this problem in being paid in BTC, as this could always be converted to Fiat currency as required by the company.
Though, yes, there is always the scope for argument re timing.

The mining machine arms race is a cash devouring trap which for QBT is IMO best avoided, whatever the efficiency gains.
Remember, if QBT have been selling these efficiency gains to, hopefully, most of the miners, then if we start direct mning, we will be competing with them on much the same terms. That is unless QBT manages, which surely is part of the plan, further tranches of efficienct gains that give us additional advantage over the other miners. But then that will queer the pitch for the product that we have already sold, which would then become inferior/obsolete as we would be competing against it with the new efficiences, which we would then have to sell on to the other miners. In other words, we would always be cometing on much the same terms as the other miners and would become part of the arms race with all of its vast capital expenditure.
If quantum supremacy is achieved, then that would be a complete game changer and direct mining would be a no brainer, but that is very much a dream for the future. Better for the forseeable to reinvest our gains in further research, if that is our strengh.

If FG can offer say 20-30% efficiency gains to miners, then this is really a huge gain with massive potential, whether done in return for upfront cash or as a cut in extra profits, I prefer the latter as there is no upfront cost for the miners, many of which are cash strapped.
To my mind this is a far better approach than direct bitcoin mining as it keeps QBT out of the eternal mining machine arms race that is the Achillese Heel of the miners but the potential golden goose for QBT.

As an ex ARB investor. looking at how PW has so disasterously presided over Argo Blockchain over the last year or so, I.m not at all sure that he is a person that we would want as NED.

The deteriorating quality of comment on this forum is disturbingly reminescent of that on the Arb board over the last year or so.

Aaargh, sorry for double post

Whilst I take your point Flowerpot, If it were for the 3rd party to be the difference between having excess miners sitting on shelves doing nothing or working at Helios, then, whilst not optimal, it still might be a worthwhile deal for them.

Whilst I take your point Flowerpot, If it were for the 3rd party to be the difference between having excess miners sitting on shelves doing nothing or working at Helios, then, whilst not optimal, it still might be a worthwhile deal for them.

I gave you a recommendation because as an idea it would solve many problems. However there is the small matter of funding such an (expensive?) project.
Probably better in the shorter term at least to get to 200MW so we can participate in Ercots sut down compensation scheme, whatever it is called.

From Chairmans Statement:

"In September 2021, we purchased 20,000 Bitmain S19J Pro machines, with delivery and installation expected to take place in batches at Helios from May to October 2022. This will increase our Bitcoin mining hashrate by an additional 2 Exahash per second ("EH/s"), not including the potential uplift from immersion."

Does this, at least in part answer the question?

AB
Cleaarly, as you say, overclocking will require extra power, another 100MW at 50%.
Did not PW recently announce that he had another 200MW of transformers on order, an order for which at the time it was not not clear what the immediate purpose was? Would then also allow capacity for a future addition of c66MW of Miners as and when when funding becomes available.

Does anyone know when those transformers are due to arrive?

Perhaps this tidies up a few unanswered questions?

Hmmm, interesting.

I seem to recall a thread on here or elsewhere not too long ago to the effect that Mara already had huge stocks of new machines and nowhere to put them. Im sure that alternative renewable energy locations are not ten a penny and just lying around for the taking.

When will the children grow up?

See they got a few recommends, circus for the plebs, I suppose,