Member Info for BobsSocks

Mention has been made of a court hearing on 20/12/23 Any link to that in a statement by QBT

I can find this,

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RNS_-_Sipiem_Court_Update_15_March_23.pdf

Where,

The board of Quantum Blockchain Technologies (AIM: QBT) is pleased to provide an update in respect of QBT’s wholly owned subsidiary Clear Leisure 2017 Ltd’s (“CL17”) claim against the former management team and internal audit committee of Sipiem in Liquidazione S.r.l (“Sipiem”).

The indication is that Sipiem is in Liquidation but apparently the case to recover monies due is proceeding against former officers of the company.

Elsewhere there is this,

https://www.portalecreditori.it/procedura?id=av9e7PPqMW

Where we can see towards the bottom, Firefox Translation,

Verification hearings S.P. (6)

Date Now Where Notes

17/11/2022 11:20 - :20 ROVIGO Le creditor esence for passive state examination

12/01/2023 10:20

09/02/2023 11:15 Crediting meeting for examination Passive State

13/10/2023 09:45 AM the Court of Rovigo hearing verifies late applications

08/11/2023 11:30 am

20/12/2023 10:10

The upcoming date being 20/12/2023. People seem to be very much relying on the possibility that the former management of the company are going to be liable for all of the monies QBT are looking for but if the original case was against Sipiem, now in liquidation, then how many other creditors did Sipiem have against them and how many other claims are there against the former management.

Assuming QBT is successful against the management what size of pie will be available to them and how much of that pie will they get? Once again are the dreamers counting chickens?

The court may have ruled for...

"As noted in the Company’s announcement of 1 November 2022, the Venice Court ruled in favour of CL17 for an aggregate amount of €6,188,974 (plus interest and adjustments for inflation to accrue from different dates until the date of payment) in damages, plus €85,499 in legal expenses (together the “Award Payment”)."

Whether QBT will realise that amount is, to me, very doubtful.

I don't expect much to be forthcoming but if anyone has more concrete information that would support the likelihood of recovery of the full amount claimed I would be interested in seeing it.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSPFWHlSKI

https://youtu.be/hfSPFWHlSKI?t=94

"Should see the company through to production..."

"Should see us through. Well that's reassuring..."

Steve sounds a bit sarcastic. Should/Believe?

"We are extremely pleased to have completed this £2 million fundraise, as we believe it will fund the Company through to revenue."

I'm sure that that and the rest does not apply here but it's worth a watch.

Not wishing to step up to bat for QBT but in respect of my third party observation raising the possible exclusion on the grounds of the application being a "mathematical method" they and their Patent Attorneys might wish to refer to the entirety of the documents provided at,

https://register.epo.org/application?tab=doclist&number=EP14864642&lng=en

In particular,

08.08.2017 European search opinion

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E0Q5HB4G3024DSU&appnumber=EP14864642&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Whereby the application is being rejected on the basis of it being a "mathematical method".

20.02.2018 Reply to Written Opinion prepared by the EPO

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E1JWEH7Y0475DSU&appnumber=EP14864642&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Where the applicants rebut the arguments given by the examining division.

Now I do not have the time or inclination to follow through on subsequent documents and communications but it is possible that rebuttal was successful after further argument and redrafting of the application. It is also possible that subsequent rejections were made on the grounds of exclusion for being a computer program or a business method with the applicant again having to fight their corner.

Whatever happened the applicants did successfully move the application to the point of grant, until it was challenged by another party, so it is likely that they have already done the heavy lifting for QBT and their Patent Attorneys to use as a cheat sheet in reply to the UK Patent Office and subsequently via the PCT given they have now entered that arena.

Your dilemma now is do you report this post out of spite in the hope that it is deleted or do you copy and paste the contents in an email to QBT so they can consider the possibility and then request it is deleted or do you copy it to QBT and leave the post in place.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8xNn4td37k

One thing to realise is that BlockChain and in particular BitCoin is a cash rich market based on competition. I guess that's why it has such appeal to companies and investors. Unfortunately that competition comes at a price and might get a bit brutal. You need to ask yourself. Does your company have something worth fighting for and Is your company up for the fight?

This may, or may not be, the Patent being progressed on AsicBoost as originally developed by HANKE TIMO TOBIAS whose initial proposals have been used to challenge the QBT patent application.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/053180113/publication/EP3095044A1?q=pn%3DEP3095044

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.00575

This is a list of the documents filed and communications between parties in the effort to move is through to grant.

https://register.epo.org/application?tab=doclist&number=EP14864642&lng=en

It begins 28.05.2015 but the priority document was filed in the US on 19.11.2014 so they have been fighting for it for nine years so far. It has been contested by others but they appear to have almost moved it to grant. "27.08.2020 Decision to grant a European patent." Unfortunately "21.06.2021 Notice of opposition" someone decided to wave a spoke in the wheels.

So they went through a load of hearings that took eighteen months and then "02.01.2023 Decision revoking the European patent" the patent that had been granted was revoked. Since then and up until now the case has gone to appeal. This is costing someone lots of money. If you can stymie an application before grant then your action is basically free. Challenges after grant rack up patent lawyer bills.

Dog eat Dog.

Does QBT have something worth fighting for?

Well as we have seen the first UK application seems to be holed at the waterline but they are still trying. That's a first indicator they do not. Another indicator is that no-one, other than my pathetic effort, has filed observations. People must know of the application so perhaps they also do not rate it. Then, of course, we have the fact that QBT have not publicised their problems but rather chose to publicise their filing. That might be good for enticing investment but...

Is the company up for the fight?

Again, as suggested, these things can be costly...

https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?q=cost+of+fighting+a+patent&cat=web&language=english

Rocks and Hard Places. Fine. So there is a lot of money sloshing about in BitCoin so it's exciting to dream about being invested in a company staking its claim to be in that space. Unfortunately the flip side, of the coin, is that their are other interested players with deep pockets and things can become a bit Dog Eat Dog. Are your pockets deep enough to feed your acquired Pet?

Don't forget to shoot the messenger but this is called research and some of you are continually asking for it.

This one struck me as being of interest,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.00575

AsicBoost ­A Speedup for Bitcoin Mining Dr. Timo Hanke March 31, 2016 (rev. 5)

I came across it whilst searching for something else and the thing that sprang to mind was the similarity of the name to,

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/patents-ip

ASIC UltraBoost and Asic EnhancedBoost. Could be good PR. Then I remembered that AsicBoost and as it turns out the paper I have linked to above was used in the Examiners report as an example of prior art to deny QBT's first patent application,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2113962.1/a198c8a4-dcad-45c9-beb3-f8297e143405/GB2611321-20220622-Examination%20Opinion%20EPO%20contract%20work.pdf

Item D3 on Page 1)

However before going back there I read a couple of web pages expressing concerns about the BitMain mining rig monopoly one of which mentioned a controversy about patents in particular surrounding AsicBoost and including BitMain,

https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?q=AsicBoost+Patent&cat=web&language=english

QBT gets a mention in the results because their webpages include a reference to Asci Boost however and as examples, others are available,

https://d-central.tech/the-asicboost-saga-innovation-and-controversy-in-bitcoin-mining/

https://bitcoinist.com/overt-asicboost-patent-bitmain-mining/

https://bitcoinist.com/asicboost-bitmain-respond-accusations/

It would appear that such technologies and the practice of patenting them has caused a bit of a stink in the community. It seems that Bitmain may have acquired a patent on similar technology to AsicBoost causing concerns about them gaining a monopoly position. In order to overcome this...

"Bitcoin mining rig manufacturer Halong Mining has announced its AsicBoost patent has joined the Blockchain Defensive Patent License (BDPL) scheme."

...it would appear someone else developed a variant or possibly an equivalent and gained a patent on it which they have open sourced to the community.

That kind of begs the question as to how well QBT's application, if it were ever to be approved, would perform within a community that is in effect prepared to go to war on such matters. This also assumes that the QBT patent is not of itself now outdated or superseded by other developments.

Of course others will be screaming, as they are prone to, that QBT are now hiding their secrets away. Fine good luck with that and, for an AI based model, that seems like a viable path to protection. However if the community are prepared to reject monopoly advances in the available technology how are they going to view an AI offering from QBT or for that matter similar AI offerings from others?

At the heart of Bitcoin is the concept of Proof of Work. It might almost be a Mantra. Making that work easier for a select few seems to be the antithesis of the community spirit. "Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts".

I have to admit I visited the Local Butchers, AIM Market, and said I'll have some of that and some of those without asking any questions or DMOR and ended up with Goat Burgers. Anyway I guess I get to cook and eat my fail before letting the cat in to sleep on top of me and going to bed.

Night Night.

Of course one thing you will need to qualify my blither is a copy of the program what I wrote. I do apologise for not being able to provide a full fat JavaScript version on my wubsite for you to play about with but I am sure QBT can work out how to go to,

https://www.lazarus-ide.org/

and bend it to fit.

Naturally I am ashamed but all the bits are here,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/program.zip

and all of my detractors can ROFL at the bit that does the sums assuming they can decipher the lack of sense of it,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/unit1.txt

I guess I should try to tidy that mess up and add some comments but, Like Hey, at least you get to criticise my polyester weave.

Full Creds to Jambone for alerting QBT about the availability of my FOSS Tech for their consideration in the next PR campaign. I really, almost, believe that if the company managed to pay attention they might be able to wing another placing for a bunch of T21's and demonstrate a proof of concept without having to beg others for a free ride.

Https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=GBP&To=USD

£2 Million gets you 1.25 times 2 Million or $2.5 Million which, at $2,660 a pop, would get you 940 T21's against the rest of The Network.

Let's have a look at that one,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/nullalt940.html

Now the answer is looking less significant over 1(2) months. I should mention my previous average of 5 different runs giving a boost of 2.39 would have taken 5(10) months to run. This time you can still see an affect but it might appear to be less significant. As displayed in my browser, the ratios, top vs bottom are, 1.8; 3.67; 2.81; 2.81; 3.17; 3.91 (might have got that wrong) over 1(2) months with an average of 3.07 equivalent to 5(10) months.

Again I cannot determine the significance beyond it being apparent but as a result of this I'm going to call them. In the time since the announcement,

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_Porting_Method_A_and_Method_B_into_Commercial_Miners_20_Sept_23_.pdf

and today they could have statistically argued for £2 Million for a proof of concept and implemented it and proved it.

I mean if I did not know what I am talking about based on what I am thinking I would have employed a statistician and bunged them quadruple lawyers rates per hour to make the significance case for the cash. Then I would bag the cash, publish the stats for ramper orgasms, buy the kit and let all the losers watch my wallet in real time rather than faff about with an SaaS solution.

There you go Jam. You should report back to base and get an opinion from QBT as to whether they need to issue a Letter Before Action so we can at least discuss why I am wrong and, unlike you, I can moderate my stupids.

Now. Previously I waved a wet finger in the air and took a guess at how many T21's you would have to set against the rest of the network over a month in order to get a statistically significant result. Significance is beyond my pay grade so you had better hope that QBT, whilst not explaining it to you, are doing so to their 'in advanced discussions' marks.

Unfortunately it would appear that some (hard of thinking) one else moaned about the post and got it deleted. Am I bothered? Well no. I'll just remember what I said and try stuffing the numbers in my model. That was the sacrifice of about 5,500 T21 Rigs to fight against, what was then, the 2,400,000 network for a month without QBT and then for a month with QBT and look at the relative results.

Now I have my 'StrawMan' Model, Hat Tip to Zesty, I can try that. I still have no idea about how to formulate a significance test but apparently it involves a Null Hypothesis, This Makes No Difference, compared to an Alternative Hypothesis, There is a Speed Boost of 2.6

Let's run the Null Hypothesis and the Alternative Hypothesis,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/nullalt.html

As you can see based on running 5500 T21's in a network of 2,400,000 Rigs the average, let me do the sums for you, indicative boost is 2.39

That appears to be significant in as much that if Method B does what it says on the Tin then you can see the result with 5500 T21's on the network. It is a bit blatant and is, in part, the whole point of the exercise. However in order to see it so clearly you would have had to have run 5,500 T21's at ,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/11/27/bitfarms-ltd-announces-major-upgrade-in-bitcoin-mining-operations/

$2660 a pop for a total of $14.63 Million for two months to see something close to that particular answer. Of course if I knew how to calculate significance it is likely that I would not have had to write my own clunky but apparently useful model of the claims made by QBT. I am still mildly surprised that QBT have not given such an analysis to prospective investors.

Next up.

Let's See if,

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_Placing_30_Oct_23_final_-.pdf

Blowing £2,000,000 on a bunch of T21's and sticking the resulting coinage in your wallet then publishing its address for all to see would have short circuited the doubt from doubter such as myself.

LargeChablis over on ADVFN would probably want to know. I haven't tried it yet so I am also on tenterhooks.

Now as I have mumbled before we can get an idea about how many rigs are on the network, assuming they are all Bitmain T21's, by dividing a couple of numbers,

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_network_hash_rate

https://m.bitmain.com/zh/product/detail?pid=00020231025110633223f8vE5pxQ06AB

530.38M TH/s over 190 TH/s gives us 2,791,475 rigs. Let's call it 2,800,000 rigs and run the model again. It takes a bit longer but I did not run out of memory. Oh also I added an Indicative Boost number,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/fullnetwork.html

Once again this is one on one so with 2,800,000 rigs QBT has to buy 1,400,000 rigs to get these results. As before you can see that without averaging the indicative boost is kind of all over the place. The range is from 2 to 8 for the examples given. You will only see the 2.6 on averaging and that is a heck of a lot of run time.

Sorry folks. That's statistics and QBT have to sell this idea to Mining Farms who are not going to accept numbers from QBT unless they can prove them on their own hardware and are not going to collectively blow half of all the farms away in order to get that answer in a short time.

As a result QBT will have to sell the idea to someone prepared to run less hardware for a much longer time in order to validate their claims. Once again remember that QBT want to install their firmware on these machines in order to protect their own precious which will likely trash the warranty.

Hi Hexam. Your comment is noted. I'm trying to give some idea about just how misleading the headline figure of a 2.6 speed boost might be.

If I run the model 100 times and average the results then the numbers converge around the expected 26:10 ratio indicative of the speed boost,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/averageruns.html

Now I'm getting to 'cheat' here. My model already knows the answer should be about 26:10 because QBT ran theirs and produced the figure for me. The problem for QBT, if there is an initial one, is that they would/should have run their model with each machine having to solve a block.

Now QBT suggest that their model was not run on the live blockchain so the first guess might be that they set the difficulty to be as low as is possible. The question arises as to whether they ran their competition once and took the first answer or whether they ran it multiple times and averaged the answer. 26:10 might have been a fluke,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/baseruns.html

The last example on that page throws up 22:14 which would be an indicative speed boost of 1.57 and there is also a 32:4 for an indicative speed boost of 8. That would really get the rampers going. However,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPT0HWVnE98

That question of doubt appears to be dispelled in as much as they appear to be throwing coins, up to a total of 36, at their test machines and performing and average of results that settle at the 2.6 figure for the boost. You might take a guess that even with a relaxed difficulty each of those solutions to quite a long time to run.

Ultimately I will suggest that this shows that the model I have developed that assumes the answer as given by QBT will reflect the supposed behaviour of Method B.

Of course. In as much as I had to hit the START button a few times to get the same answer as QBT does in their video of Method B this is a statistical process so that although the boost is 2.6 you don't always get 26 wins to 10,

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/baseruns.html

And we have a prototype. Being slightly dumb it took a bit of time to work out what to do and then shout it into submission but here is a one on one competition. Two machines in the pool. One of them is QBT. The QBT rig is 2.6 times more likely to win. Throw 36 coins at them then hit the START button a lot to get the 'right' answer and...

https://pascalworks.com/qbt/pictures/Screenshot%20from%202023-12-10%2012-43-49.png

On numerous occasions certain people on this forum have accused me of certain actions and behaviours for which they have no evidence. Since, despite repeated warnings, this behaviour is unlikely to change I will be engaging the services of an Internet, Telecoms, and Technology lawyer in order to seek advice as to a course of action.

"Bob, you can’t libel a faceless made up ID on a chat board." Other stuff snipped."

There is something intrinsically fundamental to your level of wrong but for the moment I can't be bothered to put it into words that you will ignore.

OK. According to your mate Phil his lawyer mates can get my IP address assuming I am not using a VPN. I've already told you Phil's lawyer mates can make the proper request to LSE and not only get my IP address but a valid email address where they can send their Letter before Action.

QBT can do the same.

Do you want me to do that to you or will you claim to be a faceless made up ID on a chat board?

You, and others, have suggested that you have reported my messages to QBT demanding that they take action. Perhaps, as well as the request to LSE, I should ask that the same request be made to QBT in order to confirm your identity.

I also know of A Man in The Zone who will advise me as to whether you are worth it.

Do you want to do this?

"BobsSocks, his hate for QBT seem the same as Fleccy."

I am advised by a Man called DAG that the use of the phrase 'For the avoidance of doubt' is an indication of poor practice.

However.

For the avoidance of doubt please be aware that if you choose to use my NYM or an approximation of it with the implication that I have multiple identities on this forum then I will consider your implication to be a matter of libel.

For Final Clarity.

I am BobsSocks and I post as BobsSocks. I do not post here as anyone else.

On the subject of libel I understand that having being requested to desist from an action of libel, that just happened, it might be advisable to do so but if you should continue to make such libellous statements the damages against yourself may increase unless you can prove that your libel is fact.

"Bobby boy .... you clearly vote Labour .... as you are even more confusing than confusion itself ! I hope thats not libelous !! ....however a friend of a friends friends friend .. said she'll defend me ,,,🤣😇😜"

Well you've got me there. However I might be wavering. Still if you would have suggested I clearly vote Conservative I might have advised you that I do not and expect that to be the end of the conversation.

"The issues here are you dirty troll trading for small %, we have seen it countless times Richie, it’s greed from the likes of you and Bobprat, look how upset you get and stressed out like now because the SP won’t drop to where you want to buy, that’s the issue, now you cretins are trying to untie us from BTC, absolute desperation of trolling to a new level."

No. Actually the issues here are that in the same way that Shkreli dissed The Wu Tan Clan you are dissing Rush by smearing your accusations about others trying to buy in lower in an existentially Rush thread.

I would suggest that anyone accused of trying to buy back in lower that is not motivated by that scurrilous accusation state as such as they would before a Court of Law and invite Jambone to move on to their next stupid. Hopefully Jambone will eventually run out of stupids.

Never before in the field of forum conflict has Rush risen so precisely to the moment.

Rush: Roll The Bones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pm6tb7HkRI

https://www.rush.com/songs/roll-the-bones/

You appear to be deferring to Phil who apparently does not live in the UK and not only knows about VPNs but has a bunch of legal mates. Phil, presumably as advised by his legal mates, tells me he can get hold of my IP address by making the proper request to LSE. I'm not sure I really rate Phil but if QBT want to send me a Letter before Action I'm sure they can use someone legitimate to do the same and grab a valid email address to send it to. They would get a reasoned response.