Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Operating Commitments On December 7, 2017 and January 9, 2018, the Company entered into agreements with Beacon Leasing LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Beacon”) whereby Beacon has agreed to lease their facility in Sweden to the Company for purposes of its mining operations and provide 15 mega watts of uninterrupted power. The agreement is for a term of 24 months for a fee of $810 per month. The Company prepaid the first and last month of service in the amount of $1,620. Management Agreements On October 12, 2017, MGT entered into two management agreements with two accredited investors, Deep South Mining LLC and BDLM, LLC. On November 21, 2017, the Company entered into a third management agreement with another accredited investor, Buckhead Crypto, LLC (“Buckhead Crypto”) (all three accredited investors together are “Users”, each agreement a “Management Agreement”, and all three agreements together are “Management Agreements”). Each of the Users agreed on substantially similar terms to purchase an aggregate of 2,376 Bitmain Antminer S9 mining computers (the “Bitcoin Hardware”) for a total of $3,650 to mine Bitcoin with the Company acting as the exclusive manager for each of the Users. In addition, the Users have agreed to pay to the Company, in advance, the first three months of expected electricity costs of the Bitcoin mining operations in the sum of $691, which is included in Other Payables on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017. Initial electricity cost for the first three months following delivery of the Bitcoin Hardware shall be reimbursed to the Users within the first three months of operation. Each Management Agreement is in effect for 24 months from the date that the Bitcoin Hardware begins mining operations, and may be terminated by mutual written agreement. Pursuant to the Management Agreements, the Company shall provide for installation, hosting, maintenance and repair and provide ancillary services necessary to operate the Bitcoin Hardware. In accordance with each of the Management Agreements, each of the Users will gain a portion of the Bitcoin mined called the User Distribution Portion. The User Distribution Portion is 50% of the amount of Bitcoin mined net of the operating fee (10% of the total Bitcoin mined) and the electricity cost. Furthermore, upon execution of the Management Agreements, as an incentive to the Users, the Company issued to the Users an aggregate of 436,100 shares of the Company’s common stock and a Series F warrant to purchase 436,100 shares of the Company’s common stock at an initial exercise price of $2.00 per share exercisable for a period of three years to the Users. The Company issued the shares of common stock and issued all three Series F warrants for the benefits of the three Users on the respective dates of the execution of the Management Agreements. On February 28, 2018, the Company and Buckhead Crypto terminated their Management Agreement. The Company agreed to purchase the Bitcoin mining machines for $767 and to refund prepaid electricity paid by Buckhead Crypto of $133. On February 13, 2018, the Company entered into a new management agreement with a third party with terms similar to the other Management Agreements. The third party agreed to purchase 200 Bitmain Antminer S9 mining computers for a total of $428 to mine Bitcoin with the Company acting as the exclusive manager. This management agreement is in effect for 24 months from the date that the Bitcoin Hardware begins mining operations, and may be terminated by mutual written agreement. Legal In September 2016, various shareholders in the Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company, its president and certain of its individual officers and directors. The cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) and alleged violations of federal securities laws and seek damages. On April 11, 2017 those cases were consolidated into a single action (the “Securities Action”) and two individual shareholders were appointed lead plaintiffs by the Court. On June 30, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 29, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which the plaintiffs opposed on October 13, 2017. On November 3, 2017, the defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 7, 2018. On February 28, 2018, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice, and on March 30, 2018, the time expired for plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal of the Court’s judgment. On January 24, 2017, the Company was served with a copy of a summons and complaint filed by plaintiff Atul Ojha in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit is styled as a derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) and was originally filed (but not served on any defendant) on October 15, 2016. The Derivative Action substantively alleges that the defendants, collectively or individually, inadequately managed the business and assets of the Company resulting in the deterioration of the Company’s financial condition. The Derivative Action asserts claims including but not limited to breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. On February 27, 2017, the parties to the Derivative Action executed a stipulated stay of proceedings pending full or partial resolution of the Securities Action. Shortly after issuance of the February 28, 2018 ruling dismissing the Securities Action, the parties to the Derivative Action agreed to extend the stay indefinitely, with the plaintiff having the option to vacate the stay on thirty days’ notice. Should the plaintiff seek to vacate the stay, the Company will address the Derivative Action. On March 3, 2017 and April 4, 2017 respectively, two additional actions were filed against the Company by a former shareholder Barry Honig (“Honig”). The first action was filed in federal court in North Carolina (the “North Carolina Action”) against the Company and its president and alleges claims for libel, slander, conspiracy, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair trade practices. The North Carolina Action substantively alleges that the defendants defamed Honig by causing or allowing certain statements to be published about Honig in news blogs and articles authored by a journalist, who is also a defendant in the case. On June 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and on July 17, 2017 the plaintiff filed on opposition brief to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its reply on August 18, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the court in North Carolina Action issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2018, the parties signed a settlement stipulation in which the North Carolina Action was withdrawn with prejudice. The court in the North Carolina Action thereafter dismissed the case on January 18, 2018. The second action was brought by Honig and others in the Court (the “Breach of Contract Action”) against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Breach of Contract Action alleges claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment related to the Company’s unsuccessful attempt to acquire D–Vasive, Inc. (“D-Vasive”) and Demonsaw LLC (“Demonsaw”) in 2016 and the alleged resulting harm to certain D–Vasive, and Demonsaw LLC noteholders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 2017, but after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on July 24, 2017. On March 19, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order dismissing the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but permitting the unjust enrichment claim to proceed. On April 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision to permit the unjust enrichment claim to proceed. On April 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion, and on April 23, the defendants filed their reply. Additionally, on April 30, the Court issued a civil case management plan and scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery in the action. Should the reconsideration motion be denied, the Company and its officers and directors believe that they have meritorious defenses against the remaining claim and intend to defend that claim vigorously. The Company believes that there is little merit to each of the above actions and has no indication or reason to believe that it is or will be liable for any alleged wrongdoing. The Company is consulting with its counsel to determine the appropriate legal strategy but intends to defend against the remaining actions vigorously. The Company cannot presently rule out that adverse developments in one or more of the above actions could have a materially adverse effect on the Company, its financial position or future results of operations, and has notified its director’s and officer’s liability insurance carrier.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Commitments

On December 7, 2017 and January 9, 2018, the Company entered into agreements with Beacon Leasing LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Beacon”) whereby Beacon has agreed to lease their facility in Sweden to the Company for purposes of its mining operations and provide 15 mega watts of uninterrupted power. The agreement is for a term of 24 months for a fee of $810 per month. The Company prepaid the first and last month of service in the amount of $1,620.

Management Agreements

On October 12, 2017, MGT entered into two management agreements with two accredited investors, Deep South Mining LLC and BDLM, LLC. On November 21, 2017, the Company entered into a third management agreement with another accredited investor, Buckhead Crypto, LLC (“Buckhead Crypto”) (all three accredited investors together are “Users”, each agreement a “Management Agreement”, and all three agreements together are “Management Agreements”). Each of the Users agreed on substantially similar terms to purchase an aggregate of 2,376 Bitmain Antminer S9 mining computers (the “Bitcoin Hardware”) for a total of $3,650 to mine Bitcoin with the Company acting as the exclusive manager for each of the Users. In addition, the Users have agreed to pay to the Company, in advance, the first three months of expected electricity costs of the Bitcoin mining operations in the sum of $691, which is included in Other Payables on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017. Initial electricity cost for the first three months following delivery of the Bitcoin Hardware shall be reimbursed to the Users within the first three months of operation. Each Management Agreement is in effect for 24 months from the date that the Bitcoin Hardware begins mining operations, and may be terminated by mutual written agreement.

Pursuant to the Management Agreements, the Company shall provide for installation, hosting, maintenance and repair and provide ancillary services necessary to operate the Bitcoin Hardware. In accordance with each of the Management Agreements, each of the Users will gain a portion of the Bitcoin mined called the User Distribution Portion. The User Distribution Portion is 50% of the amount of Bitcoin mined net of the operating fee (10% of the total Bitcoin mined) and the electricity cost.

Furthermore, upon execution of the Management Agreements, as an incentive to the Users, the Company issued to the Users an aggregate of 436,100 shares of the Company’s common stock and a Series F warrant to purchase 436,100 shares of the Company’s common stock at an initial exercise price of $2.00 per share exercisable for a period of three years to the Users. The Company issued the shares of common stock and issued all three Series F warrants for the benefits of the three Users on the respective dates of the execution of the Management Agreements.

On February 28, 2018, the Company and Buckhead Crypto terminated their Management Agreement. The Company agreed to purchase the Bitcoin mining machines for $767 and to refund prepaid electricity paid by Buckhead Crypto of $133.

On February 13, 2018, the Company entered into a new management agreement with a third party with terms similar to the other Management Agreements. The third party agreed to purchase 200 Bitmain Antminer S9 mining computers for a total of $428 to mine Bitcoin with the Company acting as the exclusive manager. This management agreement is in effect for 24 months from the date that the Bitcoin Hardware begins mining operations, and may be terminated by mutual written agreement.

Legal

In September 2016, various shareholders in the Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company, its president and certain of its individual officers and directors. The cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) and alleged violations of federal securities laws and seek damages. On April 11, 2017 those cases were consolidated into a single action (the “Securities Action”) and two individual shareholders were appointed lead plaintiffs by the Court. On June 30, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On August 29, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which the plaintiffs opposed on October 13, 2017. On November 3, 2017, the defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 7, 2018. On February 28, 2018, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice, and on March 30, 2018, the time expired for plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal of the Court’s judgment.

On January 24, 2017, the Company was served with a copy of a summons and complaint filed by plaintiff Atul Ojha in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit is styled as a derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) and was originally filed (but not served on any defendant) on October 15, 2016. The Derivative Action substantively alleges that the defendants, collectively or individually, inadequately managed the business and assets of the Company resulting in the deterioration of the Company’s financial condition. The Derivative Action asserts claims including but not limited to breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. On February 27, 2017, the parties to the Derivative Action executed a stipulated stay of proceedings pending full or partial resolution of the Securities Action. Shortly after issuance of the February 28, 2018 ruling dismissing the Securities Action, the parties to the Derivative Action agreed to extend the stay indefinitely, with the plaintiff having the option to vacate the stay on thirty days’ notice. Should the plaintiff seek to vacate the stay, the Company will address the Derivative Action.

On March 3, 2017 and April 4, 2017 respectively, two additional actions were filed against the Company by a former shareholder Barry Honig (“Honig”). The first action was filed in federal court in North Carolina (the “North Carolina Action”) against the Company and its president and alleges claims for libel, slander, conspiracy, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair trade practices. The North Carolina Action substantively alleges that the defendants defamed Honig by causing or allowing certain statements to be published about Honig in news blogs and articles authored by a journalist, who is also a defendant in the case. On June 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and on July 17, 2017 the plaintiff filed on opposition brief to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its reply on August 18, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the court in North Carolina Action issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2018, the parties signed a settlement stipulation in which the North Carolina Action was withdrawn with prejudice. The court in the North Carolina Action thereafter dismissed the case on January 18, 2018.

The second action was brought by Honig and others in the Court (the “Breach of Contract Action”) against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Breach of Contract Action alleges claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment related to the Company’s unsuccessful attempt to acquire D–Vasive, Inc. (“D-Vasive”) and Demonsaw LLC (“Demonsaw”) in 2016 and the alleged resulting harm to certain D–Vasive, and Demonsaw LLC noteholders. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 2017, but after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on July 24, 2017. On March 19, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order dismissing the breach of contract and tortious interference claims, but permitting the unjust enrichment claim to proceed. On April 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision to permit the unjust enrichment claim to proceed. On April 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion, and on April 23, the defendants filed their reply. Additionally, on April 30, the Court issued a civil case management plan and scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery in the action. Should the reconsideration motion be denied, the Company and its officers and directors believe that they have meritorious defenses against the remaining claim and intend to defend that claim vigorously.

The Company believes that there is little merit to each of the above actions and has no indication or reason to believe that it is or will be liable for any alleged wrongdoing. The Company is consulting with its counsel to determine the appropriate legal strategy but intends to defend against the remaining actions vigorously. The Company cannot presently rule out that adverse developments in one or more of the above actions could have a materially adverse effect on the Company, its financial position or future results of operations, and has notified its director’s and officer’s liability insurance carrier.