Member Info for BobsSocks

Unless LSE blocks them...

https://audioboom.com/posts/8392250-francesco-gardin-of-quantum-blockchain-2-million-raised-will-fund-the-company-through-to-revenue

1.16 Billion shares in issue. 133 Million in the raise for 11.5% of the company. I will name JMS. You will have to dig but this is a new person on the block who is not averse to punting large sums of cash into random companies if they hear the right noises. £2 million is pocket change to them. If it is then they will have had or heard reassurances from the company that this will, supposedly, tip them over the edge in short order. Mind you his last few picks have been Turkeys so he's probably set himself up for stuffing by Christmas.

The latest RNS from the company specifically adopts the model proposed Jez and expanded on by myself.

"We predict revenue will be generated either by charging subscription fees for each mining rig served..."

The PaaS, Prediction As A Service" model on cloud serving predicted starting points to rigs over the Internet....

I am surprised they did not think of that wangle before they read it here. Still. Better late than never, ay?

"How to mine Bitcoins on AWS. TL;DR — don't."

https://michael-ludvig.medium.com/mining-bitcoin-and-other-crypto-on-aws-eb172940059f

"Is the use of existing cloud technology (AWS? ) a complete non-starter?"

AWS does not do mining rigs. A rig costs upwards of £2,000. Then you have to house them and provide infrastructure. I would suggest £2Million doesn't buy you much clout.

"You're probably in the wrong game if you don't know what that means!"

You are probably right but others have accused me of sarcasm.

Presently showing 1.5 Bid 1.6 Offer

No idea what that means.

RNS Placing.

"It was an example using Shell to try get my point across..."

No-one understands my analogies so I guess I assume other people's are wrong as a result. My Bad.

Food and Bed.

Night Night.

"It's like saying, oh Shell spent £7m on drilling the well and getting a rig sorted, but it's going to cost a further £7m to turn on the pumps 😵‍💫"

Sorry Jam. I refer you to my previous response to Addison on your same question.

"I think you might find that Shell is a $Trillion company who are not waiting for someone to design a Quantum Pump for them and can find the $7Million to turn the ones they have down the back of the sofa."

It is rather hard to keep up with all of the rampant trolls posting such a large volume of disinformation especially when they are like me and using multiple identities. Last time I was asked I was 345 of them and can name them all.

Fortunately, as yet and unlike your good self, I have not revealed myself as possibly being Addison by failing to log out and log back in again as someone else to make the same comment.

You, and Addison, have certainly got my number.

"Over 100 posts today many from smellysocks trying to convince others not to buy shares in the morning 😳"

Sorry about that one Addison. I was trying to keep up with Jambone but got a late start due to the recent disruption of the Space Time continuum.

Also looking forward to Monday when QBT make the announcement that they have modelled their model on the Space Time Continuum. Quantum Computing PFFFT. Just wait until someone perfects Time Travel then I will be crying into my empty glass.

"It's like saying, oh Shell spent £7m on drilling the well and getting a rig sorted, but it's going to cost a further £7m to turn on the pumps 😵‍💫"

I think you might find that Shell is a $Trillion company who are not waiting for someone to design a Quantum Pump for them and can find the $7Million to turn the ones they have down the back of the sofa.

For others confused about the present discussion about this you can download your own version of the numbers here,

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03926192/filing-history

I can't give direct links because companies house, last time I checked, run session links.

07 Jul 2022 Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2021

14 Jul 2023 Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2022

You have to go through quite a lot of blither before you get to the meat but it, to me, is not very impressive.

Revenue 2021 £9,000 Page 36)

Revenue 2022 £- Page 39)

I assume others without an agenda such as myself will take a different spin but at least you have a copy of what is being referred to to make your own minds up.

"We have proved that we are mining with probability being 2.6x faster and it’s *animated*, how also would you suggest they show it then Richie?"

Apparently someone bought the NFT for this one,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

For $600,000

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/business/nft-nba-top-shot-crypto.html

ISTR him complaining about other people copying it. I can use GIMP, there you go Jam but before you leap in to another hole it's not a reference to my suit, to convert the original to a GIF.

Today's price...

https://www.nft-stats.com/collection/nyan-cat-official

$660

"Time to invest when you have someone warning you not to."

Ah yes. The Inverse Logic Positivist Troll Ploy. Often works better, in the mind of the poster, with additional inconsistent LOL emoticons.

When someone spends their Sunday rebutting my poorly constructed wibble with actual information and reasoning they are employed by a hedge fund who is trying to get the price down to buy the company up. You should sacrifice your cash on my alter to save yourselves.

They are Legion. At least 204 the last time I was asked if they are in the room with me now. Don't fall for that one either. I can name them all.

There is not much point investing in warning signs if people choose to ignore them

Thanks

"BobsSocks

You stated it has been rejected,"

Well I suppose that is an improvement on Bobsack, you misspelled Ballsack.

If you wish to be pedantic the argument made by the representative of QBT to the UK Patent Office has been rejected and rejected in a manner that indicates the likelihood of a marriage in the near future appears to be unlikely. Fortunately they do not have to rely on you for a continuance.

I seem to recall that this is what I have stated in the past with the suggestion that the current state of fail suggests that the fail will be terminal.

Then again, as we all know, Trolls are prone to ignoring or rewriting history according to their own agenda. It's a classic ploy.

"So please can you show me the failed application, I don’t mean the last reply from the patent office which will I’m sure be replied to I want you to show me where it starts the patent has failed, the actual document that say it’s failed, because that’s what you stated Bobsack, so you are happy to mislead them WOW, things have got desperate for you!"

Well. Once again you have got me there. Once again I am just deducing things. Something, unlike your good self I am not allowed to do even, if unlike your good self, I provide evidence for that deduction.

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

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2113962.1/16b26341-fe3a-444f-9221-3f1901aa4961/GB2611321-20230921-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2113962.1/193c54f4-4c15-458d-aaf2-bedf70cb2100/GB2611321-20230921-Letter%20%20Exam.pdf

This is a Patent Examiner from the actual UK Patent Office using his MOPP manual to trash the arguments made by QBT via their agent.

Now, whilst you and I are just some randoms on a BB and in the greater picture of life our discussion does not mean much, these guys are the literal definition of Terminators. When they say No you don't get your way by calling them names.

In respect of Method A and Method B I am slightly surprised that as a self proclaimed fountain of knowledge who does not want to share it still fails to do so. Allow me to remind you what the company says about them.

Method A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6xiNLqVDNI

Method B

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

Of Course Jam's original statement was,

"When did Intel pull the plug Bob? Maybe you should check the dates and where we actually were at the time?"

So. Let's talk about timescales.

If I read and understand the background correctly, I probably haven't, then the co-operation with Intel was based around Method A. The one that redesigns the silicon for gains. Rather than Method B which appears to be a modification of the software.

This appears to be at odds with the present discussion that is attributing Method B to the collaboration with Intel.

Maybe Jez can sort out my possible confusion.

The Reuters article was published 18th of April 2023.

That precedes...

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/regulatory-news

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT-_Patent_Application_-_July_23.pdf

QBT's announcement of a filed patent application on Method B by three months.

I think it may be safe to assume that the work with Intel was based on Method A. As we know the application for that one is bogged down and, my opinion, likely to fail. Perhaps this is why QBT were unable to progress method A with Intel and Intel removed the product from the market.

If not and, as appears to have been suggested by others, Intel was cooperating with QBT on Method B that might raise a different can of worms for QBT.

In as much as the QBT patent application for Method A has been rejected on the basis of prior art as published by the applicant, inventor, if they do not have a solid NDA in place with Intel on Method B and, as others seem to want, the involvement with Intel is on Method B then the patent application for Method B may also be subject to a challenge.

If that is the case then in order to overcome such a challenge they would have to disclose the NDA to the UK Patent Office. Not a biggie if it exists or the work with Intel was on Method A. If not they may have problems.

Section 21 of the MOPP. This is the Gospel of Patent Examiners. They burn you in burning things if you deviate from it.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-21-observations-by-third-party-on-patentability

You can see it referenced here,

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

"Make S21 Observation."

Hi Richie,

https://www.reuters.com/technology/intel-ends-its-bitcoin-mining-chip-series-2023-04-18/

Thanks.

Presumably Jam has managed to get outside for some fresh air.