Member Info for BobsSocks

"Bobby is just a smelly sock."

Actually I identify as BobsSocks. My pronouns are Left and Right.

You are probably right about us being smelly. Bob hasn't changed us for the last three months and the toenails are questioning the existence of Amun Ra.

"OK put it a different way, if Stampee1 was running QBT, how much would this company be worth ?

And he tweeted have a algorithm that can be 2.6x faster to bit coins. Would there be the same response 🤔."

Similar seems to have worked for SpaceKaren. Then again he bought Twitter and trashed it.

Hi Jam,

You are describing the exact situation that Fleccy is warning about.

Everyone has to sign up to QBT therefore QBT owns 100% of the market and therefore the whole premise of BlockChain falls over.

Rather than sitting on your own toilet screaming at others about how you have repeatedly explained to them why they are wrong, without actually doing so, perhaps you should breathe, take a dump and exchange you Sun for a nice book on philosophy.

Given the compute time appears to be about 10 minutes and One Bitcoin is presently worth $33,863.68 I would not be sweating the bill for running My Three Miners vs Your One Miner.

"I don't disagree with what you're saying Bob, but the amount of Blocks processed, and Bitcoin generated, would be affected by the number of members in the Pool."

You are making very lucid points that others appear to be missing. First off the one on one headline figure is misleading. They need to scale for affect and their present approach to doing so does not seem effective.

"Currently AntPool is processing the most Blocks with a hashrate of 130.58 EH/s and winning 28.74 % of the time. Lets imagine..."

That's the kind of chunk required to properly validate things and that, for the moment is not happening.

"The difficulty changes every 2016 Blocks, so if AntPool won the majority of the Blocks in a shorter period of time, the preceding difficulty changes come around more quickly and bring the Block processing time back to 10 minutes per block, probably within two difficulty changes..."

And that's the initial warning of a Fat Fly in the ointment.

"If Foundry USA also used the software to compete with AntPool, their hashrate is currently 122.42 EH/s with 26.95 % of the winning blocks, the difficulty would go through the roof and bring the win rate down to near previous levels, since the two biggest miners win nearly 60% of the time..."

Quickly to be joined by another Fat Fly but now you have ended up with Two Fat Flies holding 60% of a system that supposedly relies on a 50% consensus. I could be wrong about this one but at that point BlockChain, and one of its/the key pillar falls over.

It is no longer Democratic.

QBT as it presently stands needs Fat Flies to prove its value, of course that assumes their methods actually add any value which as suggested only happens with Fat Flies, however if they accumulate those Fat Flies the system kills itself.

It's not very symbiotic.

The industry itself, if it has not already done so, should wake up to the possibility and if they don't they are going to end up with some seriously heavy competition regulation and the destruction of their fragile ethos. Not that that would make much difference to the TechBros given they will probably have milked the dream and left the burning building.

Then again we are dealing with Cryptocurrencies so nothing new there.

"This will be in the 3-5p range within a week."

Catch you next Friday.

"Isn't that the point of it? They reduce the pool of solutions to be tried to the most likely set prior to presentation for hashing. The difference would likely be distribution latency but much of that would be negated by having a starting point 2.6 times more likely to succeed."

To go further Bitcoin is of itself distributed computing over the network. You are not going to be running your farm on dial-up. If the claimed average time to a solution is 10 minutes then 100mS of network delay is not really going to have much impact especially if you have the likely answer before the block to be solved arrives over the same network.

"They'd still have a massive Nonce range requiring processing, even after reducing, that'd have to be managed/distributed; As I said previously, easier said than done."

Isn't that the point of it? They reduce the pool of solutions to be tried to the most likely set prior to presentation for hashing. The difference would likely be distribution latency but much of that would be negated by having a starting point 2.6 times more likely to succeed.

On top of that you end up removing a bottleneck in the distribution. A local machine or pool of machines would likely have to generate its own pre-guesses and distribute them locally. That invites the extreme likelihood of duplication across disparate farms. If the guesses are centrally generated and distributed then such duplication would disappear.

As such you would gain greater leverage on the available hardware and, as previously suggested, the one vs one argument is fatally flawed and misleading. To get the impact, if it exists, you have to scale it.

Hi Fleccy.

"If QBT marketed themselves as a pool provider, they could build the Block, compute the range of Nonces and split/distribute the ranges to their pool members who'd have QBT's, that way they'd get a cut of the profits.

Alternatively they could partner with an existing pool where users are offered QBT's firmware, as a selectable option, with QBT earning either a subscription fee, or a percentage from the pool reward earned by the subscribed members."

That's quite insightful. I'm sure that others will correct me if I am wrong but it seems that QBT is claiming that they have a method for predicting, pre-predicting, most likely candidates for a solution to the next problem prior to its arrival and this is done in low frequency, low cost hardware outside of the main high speed hashing functions.

As such they do not need those hashing functions or indeed any high speed compute power. Rather than messing about with an SaaS, Software As A Service, solution where they are forced to host both their own software and mining capability then rent it out they could provide a PaaS, Prediction As A Service, solution.

Not only do they invent a new buzzword to add to the nomenclature, they would just sell subscriptions to deliver most likely candidates to their mining customers as generated on their low performance low cost hardware to the customers high performance mining rigs.

It is perhaps an ideal solution for them. They get to maintain control of their supposedly ground breaking algorithm with minimal investment and at the same time get to test it against a massively increased mining pool.

Of course the downside for them is that they would rapidly be able to prove whether it works or not.

Nom Nom.

Sorry missed that one...

https://twitter.com/QBTOfficial256/with_replies

Presumably Mr Musk is playing silly beggars again prior to buying out QBT and has deleted that post.

Still it's good to know that all these people have been granted literal millions of options,

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/QBT/grant-and-amendment-of-options/15979316

that they can buy in the near future when the SP hits 5p or 10p or whatever.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you lot will have to dig a bit deeper to get the SP up so those options can be exercised.

Night Night.

Thanks Gar

Good to see you and Jam holding the fort so late on a Friday without being paid for it.

You and others deserve it.

Wrong

Wrong

Right

Good Luck

I shall now be mostly cooking food prior to going to bed.

Oh. The additional fluff was this...

https://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/articles/quantum-blockchain-technologies-our-algorithm-increases-the-rate-of-successful-bitcoin-mining-by-2-6-times-d4657a7/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=pgVO8_tncRM

From 5 months ago. I'll assume this is a confident, not, Mr FG explaining stuff to you...

"Our Algorithm, Based on Machine Learning..."

I did not expect to find Machine Learning, AK AI, on a Bingo Card associated with a company involved in BlockChain or BitCoin.

Sharetalk explains why I am wrong.

sharetalk

27 Oct '23 - 17:59 - 853 of 856

0 4 0

Ellipses, the 9 miners detailed in my Heading mined just over 14% of all bitcoin mined worldwide in 2022. That could in theory have been 36%, if they had been using QBT's 2.6x Method B. Have a good weekend.

hTTps://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=vPT0HWVnE98&feature=youtu.be

The post has since been edited to include fluff from elsewhere.

The reply is...

Ellipses

27 Oct '23 - 19:07 - 856 of 856 Edit

0 0 0

Thanks again Sharetalk.

Obviously I cannot comment on *your* header. It would be impolite given you have banned me from your thread.

However I would take a guess that the 9 *miners* you mention run *multiple* machines in order to to get their 14%.

Being a, for purpose, Simpleton in search of other Simpletons you multiply 14% by 2.6 to get 36%.

Let's do that one for you.

1 mining pool in 100 gets 1%

1 mining pool with QBT gets 1.0262%

That's your 2.6 divided by 99

Now, Dragons Den, you want...

14 Mining pools get 14%

86 Mining pools get 86%

So with QBT, ignoring the thorn of diminishing returns, 14 mining pools individually get 2.6%/86 of the extra or 1.030% for a total of 14.42% of the share.

You really need to try to argue your case from a different perspective, likely beyond your limited capabilities, or get QBT to explain to you and other shareholders why I am wrong.

Until then I will stand by my numbers give or take 5%, of 0.42%.

Enjoy your Weekend as well.

I get the impression that posters here are not averse to dribbling on ADVFN.

From ADVFN

"sharetalk

27 Oct '23 - 16:33 - 851 of 851

0 0 1

Ellipses, each mining rig would on average win 2.6x more bitcoins if using QBT's Method B, than without; and use less energy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=vPT0HWVnE98&feature=youtu.be

The more rigs/hash that participants add to a pool using Method B, the more bitcoins would be mined and the more bitcoins there would be to share among contributors, with each receiving an amount proportional to how much hash they contributed. QBT's EUA could state something like their own consideration/commission would be equivalent to 12% of the hash, i.e. 12% of all the bitcoins mined by the contributors, leaving the remaining 88% to be divided among participants.

Individual miners and pools not using Method B would be seriously disadvantaged."

Yes I am Ellipses. ShareTalk banned me from his thread but continues to answer in the thread run by Noirua. Go Figure.

The video posted shows a one on one match between miners. One is supposedly running the QBT solution. The other is not. It is in fact an admission by QBT that they are not all that.

Watch the numbers run. Your result, one on one, is...

https://youtu.be/vPT0HWVnE98?t=91

The 2.6 figure claimed by QBT.

If you are literally 2.6 times *faster* you should win 100% of the time. If you are 2.6 times more *probable* you should win 2.62% more.

The problem, as I have previously demonstrated, is that it is not 1 QBT enabled machine VS 1 Brute. It is 1 QBT VS 99 Brutes. 1 Brute wins 10 times out of 36. 99 Brutes would trash the 1 QBT.

The comparison is pure PR fluff and you are being sucked in by it and people such as Sharetalk and others here.

On that note for those who think I am a shorter or something else from your standard list of names to call people who raise questions about motives you are the people my posts are directed against. If QBT suffers collateral damage as a result and you or they are unable to reasonably answer those questions then blame yourselves.

Have a Nice FOMO Weekend.

I'll leave you people who supposedly do research but refuse to link to it with these two.

From the source...

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

30 Sep 2021 07.00 AM Asic UltraBoost - Patent Application

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

24 Jul 2023 07.00 AM Patent Application

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

The Cat is asking for food so I'll add some comments on Monday.

Hi DSFlat

"It would only work for solo miners or those miners Not using a mining pool

Example:

Argo has 2.8 EH which it pools into Foundry USA which has a combined pool of 126 EH. Block rewards are distributed according to % hash supplied to the pool."

That's, almost, about the sum of it.

A single miner will most likely not see any effect. A pool of miners may gain some marginal leverage assuming the claims have any validity. If you believe the BlockChain consensus then that happens at 50% of the market.

Unfortunately that's the Dragons Den argument and when all the miners are mining 100% with the additional supposed advantage of QBT's unpatented techology they will still be mining 100%.

ITMT someone rolls out 2nm lithography, or invests in a snakeoil Draft Excluder,

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154654901185

and QBT gets to eat it's own tail.

Hi again Phil.

I still stand by my analysis but try it this way.

From my original post,

"Before diving in I will mention that others have asked about how testing of Method A and Method B is progressing. Take that into consideration as you read the following."

A 160% improvement should be a no-brainer. You plug it in you get 160%.

Doesn't work like that.

Statistically a 2.6 times probability improvement is a 2.63% gain.

You don't Bet The Bank on that margin. Or the Claim.

Furthermore if you do not have access to a rigorous analysis of the claim including confidence intervals then you run tests. You would run them anyway.

If the tests are taking time then you might take a guess that the results are not very conclusive and that assumes the company is reliably reporting on their progress.

"Bob

This is just hyperbole and conjecture!"

Hi Phil.

It's not. My numbers may not be precise to the second decimal point but in terms of the Ball Park they are sitting on The Pitchers Mound.

Until someone else manages to come up with a different, reasoned, argument that's what you have.

"Those last few lines are a load of codswallop. Why are you dividing the multiplier by 99?"

This isn't going to help you but the other 99 did not give up mining because you bought new software.