Member Info for fleccy

Https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1812824850&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1451011517&format=interactive

" I'm about 20 years out of date since completing my Cisco CCNA a vast amount has changed since these days and now am a newb."

Ha, I've had some experience working with Cisco kit during my time in the industry 😏. On one occasion I visited a customer site to replace a Cisco switch, can't remember the model; The customer's contract meant they supplied the equipment and we changed it out, anyway he gave me a switch to replace the faulty one so I deleted the config, loaded the config recovered from the faulty switch and changed it out, the customer ran in and said their whole network including IP phones on all their sites had fallen over and asked if it could have been connected with the work I'd done; My first reaction was oh 5h !t and I immediately checked the Vlan database settings on the switch, that the customer had given me, and it was configured as a Master and must have had a higher number than the current network Vlan database, so overwrote every switch in the network. I cleared the switch Vlan database and changed it to slave mode, then rebooted and it still didn't recover the network, which was perplexing, so I changed the domain on the replacement switch and it forced a refresh of the Vlan database throughout the customer network and everything recovered. The Vlan database settings wasn't something we routinely checked, when installing switches, since the switches we supplied already had the Vlan database wiped when they came out of storage, I never made that mistake again I worked on loads of Routers, switches and even Cisco Call Manager on occasion over the years.

"The lead time on hardware is the killer at the moment"

If it was just a case of using standard commercial servers, then there are plenty available on the market and they could probably roll things out quite quickly; If they need something special, or even custom servers capable of crunching lots of numbers at ridiculous speed, then it'll take longer and cost more.

The trade value is listed in pence not pounds.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/QBT/quantum-blockchain-technologies-plc/trade-recap

"Anybody else just seeing trades until 15:43 on LSE yesterday?"

Something went wrong with London South East yesterday afternoon and they stopped logging trades. The last trade on London Stock Exchange showed at 16:40, just after UT, for 5,666,666 shares.

Latency in relation to High Frequency Trades is about winning the race to get the trade in first. Latency in respect of QBT's product is about the number of Network hashes processed while QBT's server crunches it's numbers, and the time taken for client/server communications.

The current Bitcoin network speed is around 445 EH/s, so the Bitcoin network will try 445,000 Trillion hashes every millisecond while QBT do their thing, hence the need for a fast server as close to the client as possible. The speed of light in glass is 200,000 kilometers per second, so for every 200 Km distant the client is from the server it'll take at least 1ms one way or 2ms round trip delay, and that doesn't include the amount of time it takes QBT's software to process the data and have responses. Every millisecond of delay in communicating between QBT's server and Clients increases the chance of someone else on the Bitcoin Network finding a winning hash. If QBT's server was situated in Milan and the Miner was located in Los Angeles, the distance between server and client would be approximately 10,000Km; Communications would have a roundtrip delay of 100ms alone, with the Bitcoin Network processing at least 44.5 million Trillion hashes before QBT's server does anything. The more delay the less chance QBT's software will achieve a winning hash before others, which is why QBT need to locate their servers in the US.

"If the block takes 10 minutes to solve and you do it 2.6 times faster then that is 3 minutes 50 seconds.

100mS is meaningless."

Bob, I believe you're looking at the wrong thing, 10 minutes per Block is the average time for finding a winning hash; The more important figure, from the point of view of latency, is the 444.77 EH/s that the Network processes hashes at.

I don't know, because I don't know who they are.

FG must read my posts, I've said for ages that low latency is critically important and did I not say earlier that they'll install their server in a Datacenter. The only thing he added is that they're intending to install multiple servers in multiple Datacenters, which makes sense as they need to be as close to their customers as possible. It's clear the servers will have to be top end and able to crunch numbers at a phenomenal rate. Something else, when miners build their Block they fill it with transaction data from a pool with different miners processing different Block's, I assume QBT will have to process multiple different Blocks from many miners meaning the range of Nonces could be different for each miner? In the case of a big miner wouldn't it make most sense to co-locate the server at the mining facility, but there was no mention of that in the interview so maybe they aren't targeting the really big miners? Or does QBT's software only process the header section of the Block and ignore variables in the transaction section of the Block, meaning all miners would receive the same range of Nonces?

I'm still unclear from the various releases if QBT's software will work well at the current Bitcoin difficulty, and I'm also still of the opinion that the real proof will be verified statistical improvements in Block processing time for miners on the live Bitcoin network.

QBT haven't said anything about building their own Datacenter, their Cloud infrastructure will most likely be a server in a Datacenter rack. The reason companies use Datacenter facilities is because everything's on hand within the facilities. It'd be madness not to use those facilities when the server will probably fit in one rack.

I used to work in Telecoms Jambone and attended Datacenters on many many occasions, so I do have some experience.

Jambone, your lack of understanding is astounding. A server rack in a Datacenter would be managed by QBT, with the Datacenter staff only offering remote hands maintenance, it would be the same as if QBT owned a datacenter. Why would they want to set up their own datacenter when facilities offering rack space are located all over the US?

"The Placing provides QBT with the opportunity to set up its cloud service infrastructure, most likely in North America"

I don't think renting Datacenter space in the US is that expensive. QBT would have to build the server and then rent Datacenter space and connectivity, certainly nowhere near £2 Million. This placing is likely to cover general cash burn.

"In the second quarter 2022, the average monthly per kilowatt rent of data centers in the Silicon Valley in the United States was between 135 U.S. dollars and 150 U.S. dollars. Northern Virginia, which is the biggest data center market in the U.S. by existing inventory and new capacity under construction had monthly rent between 100 and 140 U.S. dollars."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1224973/data-centers-rent-in-the-usa-by-market/

https://www.trgdatacenters.com/how-much-does-a-data-center-cost/

I can't imagine it would cost more than $20,000 a year to rent Datacenter space and fast connectivity in the US.

"fleccy

Posted in: QBT

Posts: 10,799

Price: 0.90

No Opinion

RE: Current MCap =Court win, nothing allowed for QBT29 Sep 2023 17:45

"any company waiting to produce a revenue have to put that disclaimer which is a lot of companies, we are close to commercial revenue and we have only just raised a £1m a couple of months back, we don’t need to by expensive computer as we already have them, but here you are trying to paint your picture as always"

It was their words not mine and it wasn't a disclaimer, it was in their Going Concern subsection of their Notes to the Financial statements section.

According to their Interim results, they had €463,000 at the start of the period, they then received €1,164,000 from the capital issue and had €763,000 at the end of the period, so in total they've burned through €875,000 since the start of the period; I suspect they'll need to raise more cash."

"fleccy

Posted in: QBT

Posts: 10,799

Price: 0.90

No Opinion

RE: SP5 Oct 2023 08:36

Not really Jambone, their cash burn will probably be high in this Financial Year too; According to their Interim results they had €463,000 at the start of the period, and received €1,164,000 from the capital issue with €752,000 remaining at the end of the period, so in total they've burned through approximately €875,000 since the start of the period."

Didn't me and Jez say they'd soon issue new shares to raise cash, in the last couple of weeks, and didn't I say to expect an issuance in view of the recent spike? And didn't some of the regulars on here say they already have enough cash? Take from that what you will.

I've taken a quick look at Jack Dorsey and a quick search makes it clear why they bought the Intel Chips, it's to manufacture Mining apparatus called hashboard.

"As per the announcement, Block has officially completed the first prototype for the bitcoin hashboard, which “sits at the heart of the mining system.” The company described the hashboard as a printed circuit board (PCB) capable of hosting an array of mining ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). Notably, the ASICs are responsible for the complex calculations that drive the bitcoin mining process."

As far as Firmware's concerned they said this:

"The Mining Development Kit will also consist of a custom controller board that will work with the hashboard, along with an open-source firmware, a software API, and a web front-end to allow developers to modify the key performance parameters of the hashboard."

It looks as though they're offering a bare bones Open-Source Firmware as part of a development package, and there'd be nothing stopping QBT developing their own firmware for the hashboard, but going off the article the firmware is being left to others with the main focus being on manufacturing. Going off that I can't see any indication Block/MDK are looking at partnering with anyone in respect of Firmware, with the key words supporting that view being Open-Source.

https://bitcoinnews.com/jack-dorseys-block-bitcoin-hashboard-prototype/

"Intel aren’t selling chips for miners anymore, hence why Block bought them to make its own rigs, QBT already knows the Intel chips inside out and where exactly to place it because Intel told us where to, maybe block can write their own software for the chips, will it be a s quick as QBT, I will take and educated guess, NO"

Jambone the definition of an educated guess is, "a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct".

Can you advise on your vast knowledge and experience qualifying that assertion?

"Bitcoin Next Difficulty Estimate

62.38 T

↑ 2.21%

(in 91 blocks ~ 0 days, 14 hours, and 50 minutes)"

https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/difficulty-chart

"Dinosaurs, digital is the way forwards, it’s no good crying over Lloyds"

Jambone when have you ever heard me cry over Lloyds? Unlike you I don't get emotional when the price of my stocks fall, since it's pointless; What I do is buy more stock as the divi's roll in and watch my dividend income grow over time, it's called compounding. QBT is a 50/50 play in my opinion, you'll either win or lose with nothing inbetween, unless you're a trader and time the swings correctly. Where we disagree is that you think QBT are already there, like a rocket on a launch pad ready to take off and go ballistic, I'm of the opinion that the rocket could have a faulty engine and fail to launch.