London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
With results due from QBT at the end of June this should once and for all stop all the speculation.
FG has declared QBT are live testing thus backing himself into a corner imo .
The bull case will be at very least be partially proven correct if FG announces revenue from btc mining ( live testing can surly only mean actually mining on the network) , if they are mining there must be revenue no matter how small .
Should QBT not provide a revenue update from Mining you’d have to say it adds weight to the bear case .
Even if QBT’s tech has been used by a third party there must be data to update the market .
I’m happy for sensible posters to point out any other possibilities but given any revenue earned is a significant change in financial circumstances for QBT, and therefore is required by market rules to update the market I’m struggling to see how the can is kicked further down the street.
There won't be any revenue in the accounts yet.
Thanks for the reply Notready 1 , Why don’t you think there won’t be revenue from BTC mining yet ?
I believe FG first stated live testing was taking place late in 2023 or possibly early in 2024 , mining pools settle accounts in most cases monthly but in some cases weekly, so there should be revenue generated in the reporting period?
I’m genuinely interested why you don’t think any revenue will be shown, in more traditional industries I understand there maybe lags in payments which would take revenue outside the reporting period but bitcoin mining pools settle payments either in $ or Bitcoin on a weekly or monthly basis.
I don’t think Qbt have any agreement or are expecting any remuneration from the 2 mining pools allowing Qbt to test on their rigs, I may be wrong but this is my belief until i see an RNA stating different.
TOTHEMOONBITCOIN I believe this is called - IRONY
'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite'
Simplified - creating a username that implies bullish sentiment, and spending all your time creating doubt and fear to promote bearish sentiment.
CAPITALISINGONFEAR ? Maybe
Playing the man and not the ball Mikedj ? Very interesting you feel my post was promoting bearish sentiment when I actually pointed out both bullish and bearish possibilities. An answer to the question I posed would be far more beneficial to the discussion than attempting to interpret my intentions based on the use of capital letters , I guess my request for sensible replies was my downfall.
TTMBTC - yes, I think it was a refreshingly balanced post which is always good to see.
On the revenue point it is generally recognised when it is earned - not when payment is acoreceived which could be much later or (like with airlines and advanced ticket sales) much earlier.
So any earnings should be recognised immediately when each BTC is mined (obviously a share of it if part of a pool).
Like you I can’t see how live testing can be carried out unless they are mining for real as part of that test. I also agree that any revenue generated should lead to an RNS.
Someone with better technical understanding might be able to suggest how live testing can prove a method works whilst still not mining but I haven’t seen a good answer to this when this has been asked before - though what Woody says could make sense - namely they are allowed to mine by third parties but in return those parties would retain call the income as the price of that cooperation?
@TOTHEMOONBITCOIN
Agree with you that by live mining in pools QBT will be generating revenue. We have no details on the scale of the mining but QBT will get rewarded for any contribution to the pools, regardless of how Method B is performing. Can't imagine it will be reported in the June final results though unless we were live mining in December 2023, which may be possible as the CEO indicated in January 2024 that they were gathering live results at that point.
'allowed to mine by third parties'
Can't see any reason why a third party would be involved. The whole purpose of a pool is you connect your rig to it and away you go, ideal for QBT testing their Methods anonymously.
I can’t see what they can prove though unless they are mining on hundreds of rigs - which QBT don’t have as far as I know?
Your downfall (TOOTHEMOON) is your obvious agenda to devalue the company with false and exaggerated scepticism.
* acoreceived should read actually received in earlier post
Once again the forum is deluged with teams of individuals engaged in false fearmongering.
Here they are, must have gone away for the bank holiday weekend and now back to work trolling QBT, like we don’t know all you trolls have one router 🤡
Because they are testing on the mining pools......live testing yes, but testing....
But how does that work without generating revenue? What are they testing? The only true test will be when they actually try to mine with their software otherwise how can they validate the 2.6x claim?
So do you think they would go through all this effort to get porting on to Chinese rigs if the methods don’t work?
They been dipping in and out of these mining pools etc for a good time now.
'I can’t see what they can prove'
Quite, it's not as simple as FG makes out with his one vs one rig analogy. As far as I'm aware the hash rate is not increased so it can't be that. Who knows, we don't have enough info from QBT to know what they would consider proof that the Methods work
'So do you think they would go through all this effort to get porting on to Chinese rigs if the methods don’t work'
They confirmed back in 20 Sep 2023 that porting was underway on Chinese rigs:
'the Company can start porting on the equipment made by the largest mining rig manufacturer in that region'
If this means that they knew back then that Method B worked why is FG still holding off confirming that it works some 7 months later?
Why would they be porting if it didn’t work?
Why reverse engineer the Chinese chips if method B doesn’t work?
They were porting 7 months ago. Are you saying back in Sep 2023 they knew the Methods worked on the live blockchain? If so, why are they just testing it now?
“Can't imagine it will be reported in the June final results”
I agree, not in the reported numbers but surely it would be mentioned under post balance sheets events? Mind you, as I said, it also warrants an RNS before that anyway in my view if they started to generate any revenue.
Brew and Hexam got the tick up bot working again?
'Were they Brew'
They stated in the 20 Sep 2023 PRN that they were commencing porting onto Chinese rigs. Are you doubting what QBT claimed in a PRN? According to your logic they wouldn't have been porting then unless they knew Method B worked on the live blickchain.
Very odd then, 7 months later, that FG still has not publically confirmed that Method B worked. Sonwthing clearly gone wrong with theur testing.