Member Info for fleccy

Jez, there are lots of variables and brute force seems to be the winning formula. If QBT's software works, there are only 4 top miners who'd have to agree among themselves whether or not to use it. If they all used it then collectively they'd be no better off, and they'd lose nothing if they all agreed not to use it. If it does work as advertised at current difficulty, which remains to be seen, the smaller miners would probably be the ones who may gain the most from using it.

All that said, nothing QBT's released proves their software could cope with current hashrates and difficulty.

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.

Currently AntPool is processing the most Blocks with a hashrate of 130.58 EH/s and winning 28.74 % of the time. Lets imagine they implemented QBT's firmware across their entire pool, and the firmware does what it says on the tin; Initially AntPool would likely increase their wins by at least double and decrease the time to process the block's by half, or more, since the whole idea of using QBT's software is to reduce the time for finding a winning hash. 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. 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. If the four top miners all used it then they'd all be back at square one with massively higher difficulty, they could just as easily agree among themselves not to use it. I've made this argument before.

"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."

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.

Where's the announcement stating that QBT and Block will partner up? Without a clear announcement stating as much, it's pure speculation to imply QBT will be in any way involved with Block.

More thread pumping fantasy speculation. If QBT are serious about their figures, why don't they start their own pool?

From my Probability and Bitcoin Mining thread:

"2.6/ 3,228,428 equaling 1/1,241,703 which equals a 0.00008 chance of winning the block every 10 minutes. This means that it will statistically catch a block every 1,241,703 blocks or 8,623 days, which equals to 23.6 years"

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.

These things are easier said than done, and the results would depend on how attainable QBT's 2.6 times performance improvement is in the real world.

Trying to get my head around probabilities ties me in knots, so I thought I'd have a look around. I found this article:

https://www.nicehash.com/blog/post/how-is-solo-mining-probability-calculated

"Let's take a look at solo mining with one of the top-of-the-line ASIC and what is its probability of finding a block.

AntMiner S19 XP speed: 140 TH/s

Bitcoin Network Hashrate: 215,370,000 TH/s

Bitcoin Block Time: 10 minutes

If the above example, AntMiner S19 XP has 1/1538357 of the network hashrate. The miner has a 0.000065% chance of catching the block every 10 minutes. This means that it will statistically catch a block every 1538357 blocks or 10683 days, which equals to 29 years. "

The current Bitcoin hashrate is 451.98 EH/s, which equals 451,980,000TH/s. Using the calculation method in the article 140/451,980,000 = 1/3,228,428 giving a 0.000031 chance of winning the block every 10 minutes. This means that it will statistically catch a block every 3,228,428 blocks or 22,419 days, which equals to 61 years.

QBT say their software increases the chance of winning a block by 2.6 times, so putting that into the calculation we get

2.6/ 3,228,428 equaling 1/1,241,703 which equals a 0.00008 chance of winning the block every 10 minutes. This means that it will statistically catch a block every 1,241,703 blocks or 8,623 days, which equals to 23.6 years.

This is a very simplistic way of looking at it and ignores variables like difficulty level changes and how that affects QBT's 2.6 times assertion.

The only test results that count will be real world results involving mining actual Bitcoin, using current difficulty levels and network hashrate's.

Indeed NDNIC BT own the ducts and poles, with Openreach managing the infrastructure and Fibre rollouts of BT Fibre. Other CP's can rollout their own Fibre using BT/Openreach PIA, and pay rental for that use. If Openreach are IPO'd in the future, the workforce and infrastructure are separate entities so BT will likely retain the infrastructure and outsource management to Openreach; Openreach would be valued against the revenue from BT and the other CP contracts.

I don't agree with the UBS view about BT, and they appear to push any negative narrative justifying their view, like the implication that VMO2 might take over TalkTalk. Over the years there have been various stories used to beat BT down, I'm surprised they didn't resurrect the Sky/VMO2 story to add even more negativity. VMO2 taking over TalkTalk, would cost VMO2 whilst they're in the midst of upgrading their own coaxial/RFOG DOCSIS network to FTTP, as well as supporting the nexfibre rollout; All a TalkTalk takeover would achieve is that VMO2 would replace TalkTalk as Openreach's customer, with the possibility that many TalkTalk customers may not want to transfer over to the VMO2 network in areas where VMO2 have coverage. In my opinion the chance of VMO2 taking over TalkTalk is miniscule due to cost and risk, and it'd make little difference to Openreach if they did.

Although I disagree with the UBS narrative projected toward BT, they seem to have an uncanny knack of calling price falls no matter how low a number they pick, based on dodgy speculation about BT's competition, which makes me suspicious about their sources of information and whether they're connected to other vested interests.

It's looking like we might get my sub 110p next week, so it'll be a toss up whether I direct a £20,000 top up into BT or Lloyds, since Lloyds is looking extremely tempting too. I currently have a preference, but I'll keep it to myself for now.

Https://www.telecomtv.com/content/access-evolution/uk-s-ofcom-relaxes-its-net-neutrality-grip-but-rejects-fair-share-calls-48831/

For anyone who has trouble sleeping:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/270260/Statement-Net-Neutrality-Review.pdf

I suspect it'll follow the trend and drop next Thursday, but that isn't written in stone. I'm wondering about any pension updates, and any increase in Net Debt as catalysts to set the direction of travel either way. Sometimes the market likes to catch you out.

"Yours is full of zero truths fleccy"

What did I say that isn't true

More like Poo Poo

Addi your scenario is full of half truths based on QBT statements. Yes they received mining rigs and may well have tested with QBT's Method A and Method B Firmware, but did they test on the live network or using test data in the lab? The animation for Method A shows testing with 10 leading zero's and the current live Bitcoin network requires at least 18 leading zero's to achieve a winning hash, the Method B video shows sequences in the Trillions whereas the big miners are processing hashes in the Millions of Trillions per second; That's why I'm saying QBT's figures are theoretical.

Jamboner I just love dividends, what more can I say?

With reference to QBT, what I'm saying is that lab tests aren't necessarily an indication of real world performance. Assuming some miners do decide to test using the SaaS product, it shouldn't be too long before real world figures become available. Until verified independent real world results become available, producing actual Bitcoin, QBT's figures should be viewed as theoretical.

Mandy there's a lot of contradiction in your posts. On the one hand you imply that a takeover of BT is almost certain, but criticize people who indicate they're looking at topping up at the current low price. If a takeover was imminent, wouldn't that be a signal to fill one's boot's with BT stock?

QBT's figures are meaningless, since they refer to lab tests and aren't subject to the same variables on the Bitcoin network. The lab tests don't take changes in difficulty into account, or the current difficulty, or the phenomenal hash rates. Lab tests also wont replicate the probabilities inherent in the Bitcoin network. Until real world results become available QBT's figures should be viewed as theoretical, many of the posters on here talk about QBT's figures as if they're a dead cert when they aren't.

" think they have been working on an update the past couple of weeks that wasn't yet ready to be released and this will contain more details on the porting of the methods which by the sounds of it have been successful as these methods have now been made available via SaaS."

Addi, as I said previously, if you read the PRN it states:

" The Company has therefore made its Methods available in the form of a SaaS platform to enable the core of the Methods to be installed on a QBT protected server and accessed by potential BTC mining clients and partners to allow them to undertake evaluation of the Methods and this was the substance of yesterday’s X announcement."

The important word in that statement is "evaluation", which suggests testing rather than using the software to generate income. If people here have any dialogue with QBT, it would be worth asking them if the SaaS product is for testing purposes, or marketable revenue generating software.

H1 FY24 results are due in next Thursday and BT has a tendency to drop on results day. Does anyone have any thoughts on price action for the upcoming results day?