Member Info for fleccy

😂🤣

"what was the name of the directors that was into the legal side again? Will make it to the attention of!" 🤣

Shut up Jambone, email the Pope for all I care. Your post are laughable and desperate.

"You need to seriously ask Joe for trading advice."

Who's Joe? 🥱

"Also important to note @fleccy that QBT say the improvements are still theoretical, both the 2.6x and the energy saving."

I just don't get the reasoning behind using test data at a lower difficulty level than the on-chain live data. The problem with test data is that it isn't real world, so you can tweak and try different things to gain performance improvements, but how will those adjustments pan out when you use live data? The BTC network runs 24 hours a day 7 days a week, QBT could have used on-chain live data and compared the performance between their in house test rigs using the real thing? They needn't have joined the competition for the winning hash, just run their own in house competition, or am I thinking about it too simply?

"Do you seriously think that QBT as a company don’t talk about how they will overcome obstacles of which there will be before they move forwards?"

I'm just a natural cynic when it comes to theoretical projections based on lab test results. My background is Telecoms and over the years I've seen products installed with wild claims about their performance, with manufacturers saying we'll sort this or that out with future firmware upgrades, with products eventually being removed due to shortcomings.

I only go on there when I enable VPN, since I've been so critical lol.

Ok, this is what the full text says:

Method B

Quantum Blockchain Technologies PLC (QBT) Machine Learning Research Team has developed a new Bitcoin (BTC) mining strategy, called Method B.

Unlike current standard BTC mining approach, based on a search, where the mining rig runs as many Tera hashes as possible, during the circa 10 minutes allowance for each block, with no special criteria on which hashes to process first, QBT Method B, guides the search, by deciding where the most promising winning hashes are likely to be found.

The procedure moves through the state space consisting of different header parameters and, through a composition of ML and mathematical methods, thereby searches and selects portions of the state space for which the hashes will be processed. This approach avoids processing a large number of hashes, obtaining the result in less time.

Extensive Lab tests, at a lower difficulty than the current, have shown that hashing guided with Method B criteria, can improve the ability to find a winning hash by 2.6 times, compared to standard search, while saving up to 4.3% of energy.

Method B software will be available, as a software module upgrade to commercial mining rigs firmware and will be connected to QBT server, where the in house Machine Learning engine, will update the parameter of the software module dynamically. Activation mode of Method B will be as plug&play on existing mining rigs.

I still have questions:

What is a their definition of a software module, a USB stick maybe?

Why did they previously advise that Method B requires a proprietary ASIC?

Where will there server be located? The fastest Mining rigs are above 130TH/s, so latency in communications between the server and Rig will be critical.

How will this scale for large mining operations, mining at exahash rates?

Jamboner, you make out that everything will be super simple, that isn't my interpretation.

"are you completely blind or?"

The direct link Jez posted didn't work initially, I had to go via their homepage. I can see the full text on the webpage now, I just don't believe that refers to the software solution; Because of previous RNS/PRN reference to Method B requiring a Proprietary ASIC, I believe the 2.6 times improvement refers to an ASIC based solution.

"Yet people criticise me when I voice my frustration."

Indeed Jez. I can't see anything in that mentioning 2.6 times improvement using method B.

They need to be clear and more detailed in their updates, as you're left guessing about which update refers to which product.

Overall, they reduced their holdings down from 6.28% to 6.23%. It looks as though they've converted the majority of their 8B Financial instrument holdings into shares, now holding only 0.61% in Financial instruments.

Just to add to my last post, if they are testing Method B it's most likely using an FPGA rather than a 4nm ASIC, so any results would be purely theoretical compared to a 4nm ASIC.

"the fact we are testing on miners is fantastic so all down to what results we get on the speeds, FG said he was confident it would be 2.6 x faster so"

The fact he mentioned that Method B requires a proprietary ASIC, later stating that the 2.6 times theoretical improvement is based on method B, and now talking about 4nm ASIC's instead of the previous 7nm and 5nm ASIC's, implies to me that the 2.6 times improvement is dependent on Method B implemented on a 4nm ASIC.

Jambone, show me where it states in any of the FG/company updates that the 2.6 times improvement is based on a software solution, as opposed to a hardware solution.

"You did this yesterday with the 2.6x faster, you said it was to do with chip design not yet produced, it’s to do with software which can be downloaded on to new, old or current machines which is being tested on new machines at the moment!"

Prove it Jambone, I gave you examples from the RNS/PRN's clarifying why I believe the 260% is based on a 4nm ASIC using method B, I also linked to a video showing what he said in one of the interviews. If you can show me examples of where he says the 260% improvement is associated with software installable on a server or current rigs, I'll hold my hands up.

"they wont find anything in the ten mins available as everyone with the 260% speed advantage must win over a period of time"

As some others have pointed out, it's hard to decipher exactly what QBT's various "products" do.

Is the 260% figure based on a 4nm ASIC using Method B?

What's the speed boost from their Ultraboost product, currently awaiting Re-examination?

Quantum mining is a long way off in the future, possibly 3 or more Halvings away, and such an event could break Bitcoin anyway.

It'd be nice to see more detailed descriptions of the various products, with differentiation between the efficiencies associated with each one. Currently the updates appear to be vague and hard to decipher, as demonstrated by the various different opinions aired on here. To repeat, QBT should give a clearer picture by differentiating the efficiencies achievable with each product they've mentioned in their updates.

If the 260% improvement is based on producing a 4nm ASIC, they'd need one of the big manufacturers to finance fabricating the prototype, since QBT's finances fall a long way short of being able to do it themselves.

"Great news that QBT are finding new unitive ways for efficiency then, another tick up for miners to use QBT products either finished or planned to being through to an end product like the chips we are designing"

No, because the difficulty level will increase with the Block processing rate and ensure that the Miners will have to work harder the faster they process the Blocks. The system uses a feedback loop to maintain the rate at 1 Block every 10 minutes, any increase in processing speed will raise the difficulty level and you're back to square one within a couple of months at most.

25 to 50 Million tons of CO2 was apparently the US, Worldwide it's estimated to be around 65 Million tons and increasing.

Bitcoin mining consumes around 127 terawatt-hours energy a year, and is estimated to emit from 25 to 50 million tons of CO2 each year, and for what? To produce a Token that offers no unique utility, serving no real World purpose and failing to live up to the hype for every single use case linked to it. I'd say Bitcoin mining is probably the most energy inefficient use for Electricity in the history of mankind, and describing it as industrial is just laughable.

"It’s interesting that there’s much debate going on about potential takeover but still the SP falls back."

It's because the market doesn't see a takeover while the pension and National Security is seen as an issue. I think Telecom stocks in general are being picked up over a long time frame. There are contradictory signals, on one hand the media and analysts are throwing as much negativity at the sector as they can, and on the other Private Equity are buying existing infrastructure and ploughing billions into new infrastructure. All the tech companies rely on telecoms for their existence, their business models collapse without Telecom networks, so they're important for everything. Big Tech have ploughed Billions into building cloud resource, but Telecom companies could compete on cloud if they chose to, the same wouldn't be true the other way around. Big Tech are also susceptible to changes around Net Neutrality, should Governments decide Telecom companies deserve a cut from the heaviest Bandwidth users.

Indeed Aus, there are a couple of ways companies can be taken over.

Once a bidder holds over 50% of a company stock, they can make a contractual offer to the remaining shareholders, but they need acceptances from over 90% to squeeze out minority holders; Getting that 90% is where they may face difficulty, because some of the larger holders will likely hold out for as much as they can get. Deutsche Telekom, for example, would want as much of its initial investment back as possible, there'll probably be others who'll be sitting on and wanting to recoup paper losses. 90% is a large number to beat.

Vodafone took over Cable & Wireless Worldwide using a Scheme of arrangement, with the CWW board friendly toward the takeover and VOD requiring 75% shareholder agreement for a court to sanction the deal. Someone who's suspicious might think Vodafone's takeover of CWW was a bit fishy; Gavin Darby, ex VOD, was brought in and in less than a year Vodafone took over the company, using a Scheme of Arrangement backed by the CWW Board. Orbis Investment Management, with 19% of the stock, were holding out for more money and only succumbed after meetings with Gavin Darby and Vodafone apparently. Newspaper headlines indicated they wouldn't have been able to block the takeover, but I had my doubts.

"It’s a limited time offer. What do you say?"

Ever heard the phrase, go forth and multiply? If you have you'll know my answer 😏

" I can see the expected potential returns once FTTP is completed"

Exactly and the dividends can be used for topping up in the meantime, or using as income, or whatever, we're being paid to hold. LTI summed it up nicely.