Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Lemmy, in my opinion they are 2 different things.
From the update/interview today my take on it was that they have hired this Dr. to verify the work that they have done with regards to mining Bitcoin using Quantum Computers. Over the next 6 months they will finalise the patents that they want to submit but that mining Bitcoins on Quantum Computers is still 2-3 years away. A previous RNS from last year also mentioned that a Quantum Computing solution was a way off. This to me is the future and not the here and now. Not that this is a bad thing , if their patent is good for mining Bitcoin on Quantum Computers then that could be very good for QBT when the technology is available.
The here and now, in my opinion is the work that they have been carrying out with software improvements and ASIC chip design that can be implemented on current technology and hardware. Unfortunately, I did not read or hear about that in todays update/interview. I could be wrong but that is my interpretation.
Tyke68 you are certainly on the right tracks.
According to the RNS then what they are developing can increase mining speeds by up to 30% without affecting their power consumption. Assuming that the mining speed increase directly correlates to more Bitcoins mined then whoever adopts QBT's solution could be mining up to 30% more Bitcoins at no additional power costs. So, any additional Bitcoins mined would just be profit excluding any fees that may need to be paid to QBT.
Addisonshare, are you sure that the verification process is complete. In the RNS under IT Infrastructure it states:-
"Moreover, a first set of 100TH/s ASIC miners have been acquired, where the ML Method A and Method B mining software will shortly be installed. As referred to above, more ASIC miners are likely to be acquired shortly to speed up Method “A” and Method “B” testing."
To me it reads, that so far, they have only run these different methods on FPGA and not ASIC chips.
Don't get me wrong, once verified on ASIC chips, this could prove the stated "up to 30%" is good, it could also show it to be more or even less. I am just suggesting that the verification process is not complete, and it may be a while off before it can be rolled out to actual miners and for the miners to know that they have a robust improvement.
Personally, if QBT can achieve what they are saying with regards to speed increase that applies to all existing mining hardware with just a change in operating system then they could be in a good place. With the severe delay in lead times of IC's, that currently exists, then I think that it is unlikely that there will be any new hardware available soon and unfortunately this could include the ASIC chip that QBT want to develop.
In my opinion Core Scientific could be a good company to strike a deal with if they stay in business. They mine approximately 5% or all bitcoins per day and with this volume it would be easier to see the improvements gained with the advances made by QBT.
As a bitcoin miner my concerns would be regarding the robustness of the change in operating system required. I would want to be guaranteed that it is 100% stable and with no negative impact on my current performance.
For full disclosure I do own shares in both QBT and Core Scientific and I currently have a large paperloss in both of them.
I have just received an email from Cornish Lithium stating that they have secured a transformational investment package of up to £18 million from TechMet Ltd who are a leading technology metals investment company so it states.
This might be of use even if a few months old.
https://minerdaily.com/2021/bitcoin-mining-manufacturers-update-may-2021/
The link below, apart from being a BTC mining profit calculator, IMO gives some good information on BTC mining in general and how your profit can be affected. I think that it also gives good insight to how QBT's current R&D program can have an impact on this. However, that is just my opinion and you can form your own from the article.
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/calculator/
Sash1999 - thanks for your reply. I am actually looking for a Fintech to provide information from the RNS which he claimed was in there.
It all started last Friday when there was a post stating '2ND PATENT DUE ..As early as next week and its a pretty heavy patent content wise so a possible FOMO today with the buys. I questioned this statement as there is no proof of this and this is when Fintech joined in. His response was 'Read the wreckin RNS' allow with some abuse which appears to be his trait and which he continued. This has then continued with this post in which he tries to be witty, puts a group of people down and tries to broaden it by referring to BTC in general. I think that my opinions are clear and there is no need to elaborate further.
I think that there is lots of good information in the RNS relating to what there aims are and I hope that they are successful in what they are trying to achieve. However, it contains does contain the phrases with their detailed view 'should improve', 'has calculated', 'is confident', 'preliminary approximate calculations indicate', 'strongly believes', 'hopefully lead', 'we estimate', 'the company envisages', 'could improve', 'if successful'...... No where does it say '2ND PATENT DUE ..As early as next week and its a pretty heavy patent content wise' or imply such.
Fintech, I am still waiting for you to take up my challenge that I set you but it is really looking like you are not up to it. Put your money where your mouth is, you told me to "Read the wreckin RNS" as the information was in there. If so, then please point it out to me as I cannot see it. We are all investors so try being helpful rather than just abusive.
If you are going to be abusive then please try and get it right, rabbits live in burrows and badgers live in setts. You really are coming over as an uneducated, abusive blunt tool that ducks a challenge. Come on Fintech, step up to the plate and show me where in the RNS this information is.
I agree HPK.
The company is showing a great deal of potential, ambition and would appear to have hired people that will enable those ambitions. As and when they have all of there improvements only will time will tell. It is an expensive business having dedicated chips built and who knows if this timescale will be affected by the current chip shortages. I would take a punt that all global chip manufacturing plants are running at capacity with orders backing up.
They mention about using these asic chips for mining themselves but this will also be very expensive. Having the chips manufactured, then assembled in a mining rig and the number that they will need to have any impact in mining BTC will have a huge cost. Just look at the money that other BTC miners are having to invest just to maintain their percentage of the overall global hash rate, let alone grow it. Maybe licensing the patented technology could be a better way to go.
How this develops and whichever path they do decide to take I think that it will be very interesting over the coming months/years. Hopefully they will be successful with their plans and ambitions and the SP will reflect this.
WillIwontI, you are right. Until something is announced then everything is speculation.
The RNS details that they are looking at this from several fronts with the outcome that they will find solutions that hopefully they can patent/use and they have also indicated timescales in which the hope to achieve this. However, until they release news on this then no one knows if they will be successful and if so how successful they have been and the impact that this success will then have. IMHO it appears to have good potential and I do hope that they are successful as I am invested here, have been for many months and have recently topped up.
Fintech, Are you not up to the challenge of finding the information that I am obviously failing to see in the RNS and pointing it out to me. You could try being helpful instead of being abusive but it would appear that is not a quality you possess.
700 million holders. A quick calculation when there are 915 million QBT shares in existence would suggest that every holder has just over 1 share each. I am beginning to suspect that you are not the sharpest tool in the box. So, prove me wrong and point out where the information is in the RNS. Are you up to the challenge, which I suspect not, or will you remain abusive?
I'll throw this one back to you Fintech.
Can you point out in the RNS exactly where it says that the 2nd patent application is due next week and the exact contents of that patent?
Until they issue the exact details in another RNS or the patent application is in the public domain then nobody outside of QBT will no its contents or the date it will be applied for. Everything until that point is pure speculation which may or may not be correct. It is also possible that what they are developing they may not be able to patent although I hope that this is not the case. If you can provide the exact information from the RNS then I will retract my original comment but until then it still stands.
Arb has the same problem as all other crypto miners which is that you have to keep expanding just to maintain your current percentage of the global hash rate. Arb's percentage of the global hash rate is 0.6% (as per their website) which isn't a great deal. You hear about all of the machines that the other miners are buying and there is every chance that Arb's percentage of global hash rate will have fallen by the time Texas is complete.
If they want to buy new machines to keep up then the money has to come from somewhere.
This might help.
https://www.upcounsel.com/are-patents-international