-

[bigasic]

well, If it were anyone other than BFL, I would say stay the course, but since its BFL, then yea, selling is probably good option. But, I don't know how he can get out of it since there is no refunds. I guess since he got 25 percent off, there is a little wiggle room to get the entire amount back.. If we keep the monarchs and BFL ships on time (yea, pigs do fly) then it should be okay, but with BFL's track record Im afraid that bet wont pay off.

But, Im sure Zach will do whats in the best interest of LRM..

[1713854858]

1713854858

[1713854858]

1713854858

[mmmerlin]

Im almost 100 percent certain that they wont deliver on time.. Im just saying odd wise, they might have a chance this time. I mean, how many times can a company screw up? they need to hit their time frame at least one time out of four, you would think...

I think you may need to revisit your stats textbooks... The previous outcomes don't make it more likely for them to get it right in the future if the events are independent, and if they're not, then the way I see it, the fact they have failed many times in the past makes it more likely that they'll screw up again, not less. A leopard doesn't change it's spot and all that. And as you rightly say, they aren't punished for it, people keep buying - what's the motivation to get it right?

Im just wondering who (and how many miners) LR has made a commitment from.. I have heard that he has purchased some monarchs, but I don't know a number, a run down on what has been committed would be nice, if there is a post somewhere already with this info would be nice as well..

Many people are wondering about this, but LR is very busy at the moment and so communication has been less than ideal and less than it was before. This is all for the good of the company though, as good stuff is being put into action. However, as you are far from alone in wondering about this (just look up the thread!), hopefully there will be some word on this when he's got some time...

EDIT: If you can find a buyer for the Monarch order I'm sure he would be willing to sell. That said, it's hard to arrange when you don't know how many you're selling...

I'm pretty sure he has ordered about $150,000 worth of Monarchs!! That is why I would like to see him sell out on that order. And asked others to ask him if they see a problem with that.
Being tied up with BFL Monarchs may be the biggest downside with LRM at this time, imo.

I fully agree, and I believe his position on this is similar as well and that he would sell them if he could, though I could obviously be wrong as I don't speak for him.

I think the main thing stopping this sale becoming a reality is just not knowing how many there are to sell preventing anyone from seriously trying to sort out buyers...

[mmmerlin]

well, If it were anyone other than BFL, I would say stay the course, but since its BFL, then yea, selling is probably good option. But, I don't know how he can get out of it since there is no refunds. I guess since he got 25 percent off, there is a little wiggle room to get the entire amount back.. If we keep the monarchs and BFL ships on time (yea, pigs do fly) then it should be okay, but with BFL's track record Im afraid that bet wont pay off.

But, Im sure Zach will do whats in the best interest of LRM..

Yes, he will, but BFL won't, and this should be sold if it's possible.

Assuming BFL are still selling some of these units then the queue-jump that you get from buying an early order, combined with the discount voucher used, should mean that it's not too hard to sell. The problem, of course, is splitting the order down, as BFL probably won't help with that, and there aren't likely to be any buyers big enough to take the whole order.

Maybe he can use his history with them to persuade them to split the order across several people if he was to sell it...?

[Lab_Rat]

Im almost 100 percent certain that they wont deliver on time.. Im just saying odd wise, they might have a chance this time. I mean, how many times can a company screw up? they need to hit their time frame at least one time out of four, you would think...

I think you may need to revisit your stats textbooks... The previous outcomes don't make it more likely for them to get it right in the future if the events are independent, and if they're not, then the way I see it, the fact they have failed many times in the past makes it more likely that they'll screw up again, not less. A leopard doesn't change it's spot and all that. And as you rightly say, they aren't punished for it, people keep buying - what's the motivation to get it right?

Im just wondering who (and how many miners) LR has made a commitment from.. I have heard that he has purchased some monarchs, but I don't know a number, a run down on what has been committed would be nice, if there is a post somewhere already with this info would be nice as well..

Many people are wondering about this, but LR is very busy at the moment and so communication has been less than ideal and less than it was before. This is all for the good of the company though, as good stuff is being put into action. However, as you are far from alone in wondering about this (just look up the thread!), hopefully there will be some word on this when he's got some time...

EDIT: If you can find a buyer for the Monarch order I'm sure he would be willing to sell. That said, it's hard to arrange when you don't know how many you're selling...

I'm pretty sure he has ordered about $150,000 worth of Monarchs!! That is why I would like to see him sell out on that order. And asked others to ask him if they see a problem with that.
Being tied up with BFL Monarchs may be the biggest downside with LRM at this time, imo.

I can assure you that at this time BFL is not holding $150,000 of LRM's funds.  Other than that, I can't really comment on BFL.

[||bit]

FWIW, and I haven't run the numbers (yet), but I am fairly sure they will turn out to say that electricity consumption will stop people buying miners no matter what their prices are long before manufacturers have to worry about profitability...

(this obviously assumes no huge increase in the BTC price amongst several other things)

Yeah, that seems possible. In either case, the result to the miner is the same - hardware will have low profitability.

Just a few thoughts here: The cost to run 1TH of 28nm will be about $70/month. Assuming an ROI of 10 months as a standard that was common with video cards, that means hardware costing $700/TH would be the limit. And I bet mfg's would be profitable at that price. But that equilibrium won't happen until about a difficulty of 33 billion (it's currently about 148 million), or stated another way, until a little over 200 times as much hashing power hits the network. Hmmm. Looking at it like that, it kind of seems manufacturers would have a hard time delivering that much hardware anytime soon. Cointerra was talking about dropping 2 PH on the network by year end. That would only be 13 to 14 times the current hash rate. They and other 28nm manufacturers would need to ship ~16 times as much hardware as that to hit 33 billion.

I'm curious as to when miners will collectively seem to not buy hardware. Will it be when the the electrical cost is 20%, 25%, 50%, maybe 90% ... of the monthly coins generated? I don't think it has historically been much more than 10%, but I'm not sure.

[mmmerlin]

FWIW, and I haven't run the numbers (yet), but I am fairly sure they will turn out to say that electricity consumption will stop people buying miners no matter what their prices are long before manufacturers have to worry about profitability...

(this obviously assumes no huge increase in the BTC price amongst several other things)

Yeah, that seems possible. In either case, the result to the miner is the same - hardware will have low profitability.

Just a few thoughts here: The cost to run 1TH of 28nm will be about $70/month. Assuming an ROI of 10 months as a standard that was common with video cards, that means hardware costing $700/TH would be the limit. And I bet mfg's would be profitable at that price. But that equilibrium won't happen until about a difficulty of 33 billion (it's currently about 148 million), or stated another way, until a little over 200 times as much hashing power hits the network. Hmmm. Looking at it like that, it kind of seems manufacturers would have a hard time delivering that much hardware anytime soon. Cointerra was talking about dropping 2 PH on the network by year end. That would only be 13 to 14 times the current hash rate. They and other 28nm manufacturers would need to ship ~16 times as much hardware as that to hit 33 billion.

I'm curious as to when miners will collectively seem to not buy hardware. Will it be when the the electrical cost is 20%, 25%, 50%, maybe 90% ... of the monthly coins generated? I don't think it has historically been much more than 10%, but I'm not sure.

Historically it has been a LOT more than 10% before; it's hit 100% before for standard GPU mining in places with mid-priced power, so those numbers aren't crazy at all.

Also, the figures for the network aren't daft either. CoinTerra dropping 2PH was with only 4k chips. 4k CHIPS!! That's the same as in 60 BFL singles! So multiplying their produciton alone up by a factor of 16 isn't at all unrealistic on the face of it.

I'm run off my feet right now, so can't contribute much more to the discussion, but just to say that those numbers aren't silly, and that electricity will always be the limiting factor, I'm pretty sure.

[||bit]

I can assure you that at this time BFL is not holding $150,000 of LRM's funds.  Other than that, I can't really comment on BFL.

Don't take this as hostile, but why can't you comment on BFL? You already gave a proportioned value before (see below). Seems like it would be pretty basic and almost uninteresting info. I can't imagine why BFL order would be a secret. If I were thinking to invest in buying new LRM bonds, I'd probably like to know a little more about how funds are distributed. I suspect there is a good answer, but seems a lot can't be talked about.

The amount ($150,000) was figured from what you commented already. It was commented that maybe 20% went to BFL. Figuring that between roughly BTC4800 and BTC7500 were collected from bond proceeds. 20% of the minimum value (BTC4800) is ~BTC960. That is $134,400 @ $140/BTC. It's not $150,000 but in the ball park. The comment is copied below:

Hey everyone,

[What I said earlier...]

-Lab_Rat

Lab Rat. How much funding is tied up in BFL Monarch pre-orders? Have you considered seeing if you can cancel out of that?

Maybe 20% at this point, but I'd like to point out:

This is a pre-order. 28nm ASIC products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 3 months or more after order. All sales are final.

I may be willing to sell the order to another individual and not for the fact that I don't trust BFL to ship them. (It will happen eventually) and probably sooner than people are giving BFL credit for as they've already made the chip, just have to shrink it.  I just know that individuals with LRM want more hashpower NOW, not in 3-4 months.

[||bit]

FWIW, and I haven't run the numbers (yet), but I am fairly sure they will turn out to say that electricity consumption will stop people buying miners no matter what their prices are long before manufacturers have to worry about profitability...

(this obviously assumes no huge increase in the BTC price amongst several other things)

Yeah, that seems possible. In either case, the result to the miner is the same - hardware will have low profitability.

Just a few thoughts here: The cost to run 1TH of 28nm will be about $70/month. Assuming an ROI of 10 months as a standard that was common with video cards, that means hardware costing $700/TH would be the limit. And I bet mfg's would be profitable at that price. But that equilibrium won't happen until about a difficulty of 33 billion (it's currently about 148 million), or stated another way, until a little over 200 times as much hashing power hits the network. Hmmm. Looking at it like that, it kind of seems manufacturers would have a hard time delivering that much hardware anytime soon. Cointerra was talking about dropping 2 PH on the network by year end. That would only be 13 to 14 times the current hash rate. They and other 28nm manufacturers would need to ship ~16 times as much hardware as that to hit 33 billion.

I'm curious as to when miners will collectively seem to not buy hardware. Will it be when the the electrical cost is 20%, 25%, 50%, maybe 90% ... of the monthly coins generated? I don't think it has historically been much more than 10%, but I'm not sure.

Historically it has been a LOT more than 10% before; it's hit 100% before for standard GPU mining in places with mid-priced power, so those numbers aren't crazy at all.

Also, the figures for the network aren't daft either. CoinTerra dropping 2PH was with only 4k chips. 4k CHIPS!! That's the same as in 60 BFL singles! So multiplying their produciton alone up by a factor of 16 isn't at all unrealistic on the face of it.

I'm run off my feet right now, so can't contribute much more to the discussion, but just to say that those numbers aren't silly, and that electricity will always be the limiting factor, I'm pretty sure.

Good points. The only difference however is that BFL SC Single's chips are smaller and simpler architecture (28nm is about 5.3 times denser). So, if you proportion that to 60 BFL Singles x 5.3 =  318 BFL Singles. Still not a lot. And then there are the other 28nm mfg's. So, from that, I'd still guess miner prices will drop a lot and relatively soon.

[mmmerlin]

FWIW, and I haven't run the numbers (yet), but I am fairly sure they will turn out to say that electricity consumption will stop people buying miners no matter what their prices are long before manufacturers have to worry about profitability...

(this obviously assumes no huge increase in the BTC price amongst several other things)

Yeah, that seems possible. In either case, the result to the miner is the same - hardware will have low profitability.

Just a few thoughts here: The cost to run 1TH of 28nm will be about $70/month. Assuming an ROI of 10 months as a standard that was common with video cards, that means hardware costing $700/TH would be the limit. And I bet mfg's would be profitable at that price. But that equilibrium won't happen until about a difficulty of 33 billion (it's currently about 148 million), or stated another way, until a little over 200 times as much hashing power hits the network. Hmmm. Looking at it like that, it kind of seems manufacturers would have a hard time delivering that much hardware anytime soon. Cointerra was talking about dropping 2 PH on the network by year end. That would only be 13 to 14 times the current hash rate. They and other 28nm manufacturers would need to ship ~16 times as much hardware as that to hit 33 billion.

I'm curious as to when miners will collectively seem to not buy hardware. Will it be when the the electrical cost is 20%, 25%, 50%, maybe 90% ... of the monthly coins generated? I don't think it has historically been much more than 10%, but I'm not sure.

Historically it has been a LOT more than 10% before; it's hit 100% before for standard GPU mining in places with mid-priced power, so those numbers aren't crazy at all.

Also, the figures for the network aren't daft either. CoinTerra dropping 2PH was with only 4k chips. 4k CHIPS!! That's the same as in 60 BFL singles! So multiplying their produciton alone up by a factor of 16 isn't at all unrealistic on the face of it.

I'm run off my feet right now, so can't contribute much more to the discussion, but just to say that those numbers aren't silly, and that electricity will always be the limiting factor, I'm pretty sure.

Good points. The only difference however is that BFL SC Single's chips are smaller and simpler architecture (28nm is about 5.3 times denser). So, if you proportion that to 60 BFL Singles x 5.3 =  318 BFL Singles. Still not a lot. And then there are the other 28nm mfg's. So, from that, I'd still guess miner prices will drop a lot and relatively soon.

Density here is not relevant, and the cost of mask sets does not scale linearly with process node - 28nm is a LOT more expensive than 65nm. But once the NRE is paid for, chips are, as they say, as cheap as chips! So once CoinTerra have made the first 4k, the rest are pennies, which as you rightly say, means they can afford to sell cheap.

The take-home point here is that shit is going to go down, and, just as it was before, the winners are going to be those with the most energy efficient miners (or the ones who got the inefficient chips early enough that it didn't matter, but that is only a temporary win).

[||bit]

FWIW, and I haven't run the numbers (yet), but I am fairly sure they will turn out to say that electricity consumption will stop people buying miners no matter what their prices are long before manufacturers have to worry about profitability...

(this obviously assumes no huge increase in the BTC price amongst several other things)

Yeah, that seems possible. In either case, the result to the miner is the same - hardware will have low profitability.

Just a few thoughts here: The cost to run 1TH of 28nm will be about $70/month. Assuming an ROI of 10 months as a standard that was common with video cards, that means hardware costing $700/TH would be the limit. And I bet mfg's would be profitable at that price. But that equilibrium won't happen until about a difficulty of 33 billion (it's currently about 148 million), or stated another way, until a little over 200 times as much hashing power hits the network. Hmmm. Looking at it like that, it kind of seems manufacturers would have a hard time delivering that much hardware anytime soon. Cointerra was talking about dropping 2 PH on the network by year end. That would only be 13 to 14 times the current hash rate. They and other 28nm manufacturers would need to ship ~16 times as much hardware as that to hit 33 billion.

I'm curious as to when miners will collectively seem to not buy hardware. Will it be when the the electrical cost is 20%, 25%, 50%, maybe 90% ... of the monthly coins generated? I don't think it has historically been much more than 10%, but I'm not sure.

Historically it has been a LOT more than 10% before; it's hit 100% before for standard GPU mining in places with mid-priced power, so those numbers aren't crazy at all.

Also, the figures for the network aren't daft either. CoinTerra dropping 2PH was with only 4k chips. 4k CHIPS!! That's the same as in 60 BFL singles! So multiplying their produciton alone up by a factor of 16 isn't at all unrealistic on the face of it.

I'm run off my feet right now, so can't contribute much more to the discussion, but just to say that those numbers aren't silly, and that electricity will always be the limiting factor, I'm pretty sure.

Good points. The only difference however is that BFL SC Single's chips are smaller and simpler architecture (28nm is about 5.3 times denser). So, if you proportion that to 60 BFL Singles x 5.3 =  318 BFL Singles. Still not a lot. And then there are the other 28nm mfg's. So, from that, I'd still guess miner prices will drop a lot and relatively soon.

Density here is not relevant, and the cost of mask sets does not scale linearly with process node - 28nm is a LOT more expensive than 65nm. But once the NRE is paid for, chips are, as they say, as cheap as chips! So once CoinTerra have made the first 4k, the rest are pennies, which as you rightly say, means they can afford to sell cheap.

The take-home point here is that shit is going to go down, and, just as it was before, the winners are going to be those with the most energy efficient miners (or the ones who got the inefficient chips early enough that it didn't matter, but that is only a temporary win).

Agree with the take home point. But wanted to edit the comment anyway. New one would have read:
EDIT: Good points. Seems likely that prices will drop fast and relatively soon. Only thought I can think to add is that Cointerra chips are larger in size per chip.
I wonder how much fabric 4000 Cointerra(CT) chips would cover in terms of BFL chips? If one Cointerra (CT) chip is 100 times faster, you'd need 100 BFL chips. But CT chips are about 5.3 times denser (i.e. 65^2/28^2). So, I guess the fabric size of a CT chip would be 100/5.3 = 18.86 times a BFL chip. So, maybe 4000 CT chips would be more like making (60*18.56) 1132 BFL Singles? Still something they should be able to manufacture in relatively short order.

[||bit]

For whatever it's worth - which is not much - exchange price for bitcoin looks (to me) ready to surge up over the next few weeks. $180 is quite doable.

[mmmerlin]

Agree with the take home point. But wanted to edit the comment anyway. New one would have read:
EDIT: Good points. Seems likely that prices will drop fast and relatively soon. Only thought I can think to add is that Cointerra chips are larger in size per chip.
I wonder how much fabric 4000 Cointerra(CT) chips would cover in terms of BFL chips? If one Cointerra (CT) chip is 100 times faster, you'd need 100 BFL chips. But CT chips are about 5.3 times denser (i.e. 65^2/28^2). So, I guess the fabric size of a CT chip would be 100/5.3 = 18.86 times a BFL chip. So, maybe 4000 CT chips would be more like making (60*18.56) 1132 BFL Singles? Still something they should be able to manufacture in relatively short order.

Firstly, it's really not relevant as the actual chip cost is pennies. Pennies times a factor of quite a lot is still nothing when you're selling the product for thousands of dollars!

But also, the scaling breaks down because the designs are going to be very different (i.e. BFL's was pretty shitty, hence, despite what they claim, not actually achieving much better performance than the Avalon chips in terms of energy (and even speed per transistor I think, though I should check that...)) - I imagine CoinTerra's offering will be close to optimal, and BFL's was, well let's just say, not.

Also, just look at the die size for these calculations, the process node isn't so relevant.

[mmmerlin]

For whatever it's worth - which is not much - exchange price for bitcoin looks (to me) ready to surge up over the next few weeks. $180 is quite doable.

How so?

[||bit]

Agree with the take home point. But wanted to edit the comment anyway. New one would have read:
EDIT: Good points. Seems likely that prices will drop fast and relatively soon. Only thought I can think to add is that Cointerra chips are larger in size per chip.
I wonder how much fabric 4000 Cointerra(CT) chips would cover in terms of BFL chips? If one Cointerra (CT) chip is 100 times faster, you'd need 100 BFL chips. But CT chips are about 5.3 times denser (i.e. 65^2/28^2). So, I guess the fabric size of a CT chip would be 100/5.3 = 18.86 times a BFL chip. So, maybe 4000 CT chips would be more like making (60*18.56) 1132 BFL Singles? Still something they should be able to manufacture in relatively short order.

Firstly, it's really not relevant as the actual chip cost is pennies. Pennies times a factor of quite a lot is still nothing when you're selling the product for thousands of dollars!

But also, the scaling breaks down because the designs are going to be very different (i.e. BFL's was pretty shitty, hence, despite what they claim, not actually achieving much better performance than the Avalon chips in terms of energy (and even speed per transistor I think, though I should check that...)) - I imagine CoinTerra's offering will be close to optimal, and BFL's was, well let's just say, not.

Also, just look at the die size for these calculations, the process node isn't so relevant.

Yeah, BFL was probably not so optimal. I was just roughing it in the same line of thought as you, just looking at what a more accurate comparison of BFL singles produces might be. That is, only in terms production - it was nothing to do with costs.

[mmmerlin]

Agree with the take home point. But wanted to edit the comment anyway. New one would have read:
EDIT: Good points. Seems likely that prices will drop fast and relatively soon. Only thought I can think to add is that Cointerra chips are larger in size per chip.
I wonder how much fabric 4000 Cointerra(CT) chips would cover in terms of BFL chips? If one Cointerra (CT) chip is 100 times faster, you'd need 100 BFL chips. But CT chips are about 5.3 times denser (i.e. 65^2/28^2). So, I guess the fabric size of a CT chip would be 100/5.3 = 18.86 times a BFL chip. So, maybe 4000 CT chips would be more like making (60*18.56) 1132 BFL Singles? Still something they should be able to manufacture in relatively short order.

Firstly, it's really not relevant as the actual chip cost is pennies. Pennies times a factor of quite a lot is still nothing when you're selling the product for thousands of dollars!

But also, the scaling breaks down because the designs are going to be very different (i.e. BFL's was pretty shitty, hence, despite what they claim, not actually achieving much better performance than the Avalon chips in terms of energy (and even speed per transistor I think, though I should check that...)) - I imagine CoinTerra's offering will be close to optimal, and BFL's was, well let's just say, not.

Also, just look at the die size for these calculations, the process node isn't so relevant.

Yeah, BFL was probably not so optimal. I was just roughing it in the same line of thought as you, just looking at what a more accurate comparison of BFL singles produces might be. That is, only in terms production - it was nothing to do with costs.

Well, the main point to consider with respect to production, is that CoinTerra will have good working relationships with the fab, good experience of product development cycles, won't have belligerent PR managers, and will generally not sit around with the thumbs up their asses insulting people when in fact, people in glass houses should just be building some fucking miners and not throwing stones! </rant>

But as I said, many pennies is still pennies, costs are not relevant. But prices won't drop crazy fast because of the electricity factor. They need to milk as much money out of miners as they can before the units become unprofitable to buy and run. Look at it this way: you couldn't even give GPUs away these days (for mining), they have negative value on the market. Soon that will be the case for most ASICs, so they need to maximise their income before that is the case, so don't expect rock-bottom prices too soon...

[||bit]

For whatever it's worth - which is not much - exchange price for bitcoin looks (to me) ready to surge up over the next few weeks. $180 is quite doable.

How so?

The surge is based on price activity/patterns. The $180 is based on MtGox values. It's pretty subjective, that's why I said it's not worth much.

It's mostly based on having watched prior price activities unfold in the past on all kinds of securities (a long time interest I've had). It's subjective, but based on historical observations. I'll feel more comfortable once it breaks $145 again, and especially $148-$150 on MtGox.

[bigasic]

I have an automated bitcoin trading bot that does  quite well, and it only does about 70 trades a year, well, It just triggered a buy last night (It could hold on to this buy for weeks)... so, maybe your theory is correct on your bitcoin price analysis.. I hope so, anyways....

[mmmerlin]

For whatever it's worth - which is not much - exchange price for bitcoin looks (to me) ready to surge up over the next few weeks. $180 is quite doable.

How so?

The surge is based on price activity/patterns. The $180 is based on MtGox values. It's pretty subjective, that's why I said it's not worth much.

It's mostly based on having watched prior price activities unfold in the past on all kinds of securities (a long time interest I've had). It's subjective, but based on historical observations. I'll feel more comfortable once it breaks $145 again, and especially $148-$150 on MtGox.

Thanks!

[||bit]

For whatever it's worth - which is not much - exchange price for bitcoin looks (to me) ready to surge up over the next few weeks. $180 is quite doable.

How so?

The surge is based on price activity/patterns. The $180 is based on MtGox values. It's pretty subjective, that's why I said it's not worth much.

It's mostly based on having watched prior price activities unfold in the past on all kinds of securities (a long time interest I've had). It's subjective, but based on historical observations. I'll feel more comfortable once it breaks $145 again, and especially $148-$150 on MtGox.

Thanks!

Haha. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not It's so subjective. Or just thanking me for taking the time to answer.

Of course, this idea is no guarantee in my thinking. That would be foolish. It's subjective. But if I were an active bitcoin trader, I'd be quite interested at this point to either be accumulating or readying to buy at a higher level (e.g. breaking over $148-$150). But if accumulating, also ready to sell off (stop loss) if it went below ~$130 on Mt.Gox.

[mmmerlin]

Thanks!

Haha. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not It's so subjective. Or just thanking me for taking the time to answer.

Of course, this idea is no guarantee in my thinking. That would be foolish. It's subjective. But if I were an active bitcoin trader, I'd be quite interested at this point to either be accumulating or readying to buy at a higher level (e.g. breaking over $148-$150). But if accumulating, also ready to sell off (stop loss) if it went below ~$130 on Mt.Gox.

Not sarcastic at all, but mainly thanking you for taking the time to answer. I would need to hear and see more before deciding whether it had merit, and I don't have the time to engage, but appreciated the answer nonetheless. You showed me an analysis of yours before and I quite liked it, but again didn't have the chance to engage.

Either way, it's all academic for me as all my funds are already tied up across a variety of things. I was just interested to hear as it would obviously be good for me if BTC went up!