Member Info for BobsSocks

"And definitely buy Qbt cos Suthy says 100 bagger."

Oh noes. I missed that one from NoBox(2). There. Just goes to show that you should not filter people. You might miss out on something important.

Monster. Everyone should convert their USBTC to INRBTC and become instant millionaires.

It's like El Salvador electing a populist nutjob and making bitcoin legal tender whilst trashing its broken economy even harder is a good thing. Yay. Buy QBT.

Looks like the NoBoxers are one this one like flies.

https://www.coinbase.com/en-gb/converter/btc/cny

Bitcoin Smashes Through 470,000 Renminbi!1!

Don't suppose that has anything to do with the AU Dollar being worth less than the US Dollar?

Ooops. Did I inadvertently cause NoBox(1) to eat more pavement by posting information with links that others can check in order to reach their own conclusions?

Https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/Documents

Nope. Still nothing going on.

That was announced on 30th September 2021,

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_ASIC_UltraBoost_Patent_-_Final.pdf

With the SP rising from 1.45p to 3.55p towards the end of October 2021,

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/QBT.L/chart

It kind of shows just how much the price can be influenced by the release of such news. Of course you might assume there would be a somewhat similar negative effect if the company were to announce that they were having problems with the application.

I guess the simple solution would be not to mention it and this appears to have be the choice made by the company. I wonder if they have chosen to adopt a similar approach and not announce that their recently outline roadmap has crashed and burned.

...handed over to NoBox(2) whilst it takes some time to pick the pavement out of its face.

"Brew, not sure why you keep trying to put words into my posts or read what I haven’t said"

BwaHaHa ROFL

The king of misrepresenting what everyone else says accuses someone else of doing the same to them. Blub Blub Blub. Not fair. I won't even check whether NoBox(1) has any basis for making such an accusation.

"Increase in revenue by giving them a higher 'probability' of 2.6x, it doesn't mean increasing revenue by 160%!!"

I think that statistically speaking it should. They just have to commit enough of their farm for a long enough time to see any meaningful results. That becomes part of the hard sell for QBT.

I think someone over on ADVFN got confused about that one or rather stated something similar in respect of the halving but rather than thinking of it in terms of revenue it might be better to think of it in terms of profit.

"Step away from the wine Pain."

Oh Good. NoBox(3) has arrived I guess its about that time of the day. Presumably waxing philosophically and cooking a curry a la Floyd. You know, one of those that needs a dash of wine and it would be a pity to waste the bottle.

"I can’t see where the doubt is (apart of course about whether the 160% method B claim is proved true when applied to actual mining)."

Sorry but once again I feel I need to point out that at low penetration the 160% gain will be difficult to measure or realise and, as you have noted yourself, at the other end of the scale its value will diminish. There may be a sweet spot but, as I think we all agree, they have to prove it first and their first hurdle will be getting it into a sufficient number of rigs at the low end of the scale.

Not wishing to kick NoBox(1) off again the present state of play is that they think that they are in a position to do live testing but there is no indication that they have started to do so. It is the 'next; step. At best you might assume porting has been done and the SaaS has been set up, with no indications as to what level they are at and, for the moment, they are waiting for Vlad to reel in a fish for them to experiment on.

"That's a strange take. I didn't say that did I, you're making that up."

Oh dear. Did NoBox(1) manage to mangle someone's words to misrepresent what had been said? NoBox(1) has a bit of form for that both within these boards and when it comes to statements from the company.

Looks like we have had a sudden influx of NoBoxes. I'm sure Schrodinger didn't have these sort of problems with his cat. Cats like boxes and will climb into them for a kip. These NoBox entities are a bit noisier which tends to give the dead or alive, for various definitions of alive, game away.

"I'm seriously starting to think this is a ponzi scheme."

Hmm. I also wondered what was going on with the pictures of the ball mill and whether there was someone just out of frame frantically stomping on a foot pump.

"Martini's breakdown of the RNS was spot on...read that and compare it to the last interview."

Hmm. Does seem to come across as being a glass totally empty view based on the opportunity to pick holes in the messaging.

I think I'll sit back and chill whilst waiting for the apocalypse to arrive on the assumption that it will not. Of course when it does not there's always be the next one that will need predicting.

Has NoBox(2) contributed another two sentences of wisdom to the board?

Elsewhere NoBox(1) has smeared itself on ADVFN with the usual trolls spending 24/7 being the reason why QBT are going to release news soon.

I suppose it gives them some hope to cling to given the ongoing lack of anything from QBT.

"Given the disparity between last weeks RNS and interview"

Pardon? You'll have to run that one by me again. AFAIK the only disparity was the claim that the 29th would not be needed. The rest of it followed what seemed to be similar lines with the proviso that the situation on the ground was changing as things progressed.

Well said Scott. No doubt you get this sort of thing on boards over the pond but things can also get a bit partisan over here as well with people needlessly pouncing on what they consider to be threats that do not exist.

"Part of my Sunday pondering also got me to thinking how QBT would be equitable in sharing out the winning range of hashes. So if 1 miner is using the software then the algo works hard to provide the winning hash to that miner so all good. If 2 or more are using it then is it a first come, first served basis or are the supplied hashes somehow reliant on previously provided hashes for the current block. If the latter you would basically have the situation where 2 or more competing miners are actually helping their competitors (along with themselves) to win the block."

Indeed. I have also previously wondered about that one. My excuse, or solution, would be that if you assume they provide a 3 (2.6) times greater probability of guessing a win by predicting a search range then rather than the thing being broken down into three big search chunks that everyone ends up searching in there are multiple ranges of search that are identified and those are doled out to clients in a random manner.