Member Info for fleccy

Believe what you want Suthy, but I'm not invested in QBT or any other Crypto related investments and never have. I've pointed out previously that I am interested in the psychology of Crypto investors, but I'm purely a spectator. You can watch a Football match from the terraces, booing and cheering as you please, I'm sitting in the terraces and watching the game with interest.

"Fleecy- answer the question you always avoid ....why focus all your attention on Qbt.?"

No vested interest, sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, just a general interest.

"That’s right Fleccy …. Publish all the test data …. Let’s publish everything…..And share it all with the competition …. Where you been all yer life …. Working in a fast food shop !? :-)))"

How does publishing the methodology and results from testing help the competition? It's just input and output data and wouldn't give anything away about the process in-between. An efficiency figure without understanding the data structure used to test the algorithm is meaningless. I'm not saying QBT have done this, but without a description of the data used in the testing, who's to say that data couldn't be fed in that's friendly toward the algorithm? I would hope that QBT have used data comparable to data on the live network, and I still don't understand why they didn't mine live data for testing, which would have given real world results.

"QBT have released results that have to be verified by the nomad you fool!"

What's a Nominated Advisor got to do with verifying results? All they can do is ask QBT if the figures are correct, it's QBT'S responsibility to issue the correct figures.

"The NOMAD must act as the regulator, ensuring that the company complies with AIM rules at all times. The NOMAD also serves an ongoing role of providing advice on business operational or financial strategy." Not verifying test results.

To be honest the PRN is lacking in detail. Words like theoretical and assuming suggest QBT don't know how efficient the algorithm is in a commercial setting, with live data. There's no information about the test data used, how the transactional portion of the block was filled, but they do advise that testing was done at a lower difficulty level than the current live Bitcoin network. What I'd be interested in is a detailed description of the testing procedure, including the way the test data is structured and a full set of results with the comparison data used to come up with a 2.6 times faster figure. A 2.6x faster figure is meaningless on its own, especially with caveats like theoretical and assuming in the PRN.

You call me a keyboard warrior, yet you're the one who aimed a post at me personally; At least you would have aimed at at me if you'd had your glasses on. Should have gone to Specsavers!

It's your Brain that's defective, not your fingers.

"So 20K in VOD 5 years ago is now worth below 9K, the same in Apple would now be worth about 65K etc etc, need I say more & that's without any dividends being factored in."

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, "need I say more"?

The presenters didn't appear to understand anything about the subject and only asked what appeared to be scripted questions; They didn't ask any probing questions and all but talked up the stock, just adverts dressed up as interviews in my opinion.

Some key points from the PRN:

"QBT’s algorithm, known as Method B, has theoretically increased the rate of successful bitcoin mining by 2.6 times compared to standard bitcoin mining industry practices widely used over the same time period."

"The Company’s algorithm also theoretically reduced electricity consumption by 4.3%."

"Assuming continued successful progress with testing, the Company believes its proprietary software has the potential to significantly improve the financial performance of bitcoin mining once deployed at full-scale."

"Given the expense and accessibility of current bitcoin mining equipment, ASIC chipsets and mining strategies, these results are based on a bitcoin mining difficulty(2) lower than the difficulty currently in the market. However, the research results and the statistical methodology used to obtain them give the Company confidence that its algorithms should be scalable for commercial use. "

The commercial miners take transaction data from a pool, incorporate it into the Block and then attempt to achieve a Hash lower than the target Hash, by altering the Nonce and some other fields. Different miners can use different, or the same, transaction data from the pool to build their Block; Once the winning miner's Block is accepted by the network, everyone has to start again from scratch. Obviously the transaction data has an effect on the final Hash, so everything in the Block is relevant when finding a Nonce giving the desired result.

As pointed out by a previous poster, in the PRN QBT have used the term "theoretical" and "assuming" to describe some key points:

"Method B, has theoretically increased the rate of successful bitcoin mining by 2.6 times"

"theoretically reduced electricity consumption by 4.3%."

"Assuming continued successful progress with testing"

I'm curious what QBT used to fill the transaction portion of the Test Blocks, did they use historic transaction data, pseudorandom data, or something else? To test the machine learning algorithms fully, I'd expect they'd use something simulating real world transaction data. The biggest test will be using the algorithm with real world data and I'm not sure why they haven't done that already? If someone can set up a couple of rigs in a garage or shed and mine Bitcoin, why couldn't QBT have set up their own small mining farms and tested using live data at the current difficulty level?

Maybe the reason the price hasn't climbed higher than it has, is due to the use of the words "theoretical" and "assuming" in relation to key points.

This article gives an overview of current overall mining profits including transaction fees on top of Bitcoin block rewards.

https://beincrypto.com/bitcoin-miner-revenue-50b-profit/

I was a bit bored on one of the days around Christmas and noticed QBT was at the top of the hot chats, and since I have an interest in Quantum and the Crypto cult mentality I thought I'd ask some questions. Because everyone was so nice to me I've decided to hang around.

The reason I don't post on ARB is that I don't have an interest in posting there, even though I believe the Bitcoin Mining business model will be strained to destruction post the next halving. The hype narrative is that the Bitcoin price will grow going into the next halving, but I take a different view. Post the next halving, the miners will struggle to make a profit if the Bitcoin price doesn't increase significantly and will likely have to sell their mined Bitcoin immediately, just to cover their operating costs. which will feed back into pulling the price down. The next halving could and probably will kill many of the miners, in the absence of Bitcoin price rises set against ongoing operational costs. After next April, the daily worldwide mined Bitcoin will drop to 450 per day and at the current price of around $28,000 the possible worldwide value of Bitcoin mined would be around $12,600,000 per day, or around $4.6 Billion per year. As the difficulty level rises the more electricity required to process blocks, so the next halving will need to kill off many of the miners, to reduce the difficulty level, leading to a last men standing situation. This is just my speculative view of what might happen, but it makes sense to me. Personally I don't see any value in Bitcoin, but that's just my opinion.

Addison

They're not testing the next level of difficulty, this is what they said:

"Given the expense and accessibility of current bitcoin mining equipment, ASIC chipsets and mining strategies, these results are based on a bitcoin mining difficulty(2) lower than the difficulty currently in the market. However, the research results and the statistical methodology used to obtain them give the Company confidence that its algorithms should be scalable for commercial use. This would enable a step-change improvement in the probability of successfully mining bitcoin using the current bitcoin mining standards in mining equipment, ASIC chipsets and mining strategies akin to what is in commercial use globally."

“We will now speed up the next phase of testing allowing us to confirm our current results at a degree of difficulty as close as possible to conditions now prevailing in the bitcoin mining industry. In addition, we intend to begin development of the industrial commercialisation phase of our bitcoin mining Method B, including deployment on mining rigs of the type currently in widespread use by larger bitcoin mining corporations."

From what they've said they're not using the current state of the art mining rigs in their testing, and don't give a specific timetable of how how long the next phase of testing will take, will it be a year? 2 years?

Jambone

"no Brainer, good to keep debunking any negative point you make so keep going"

I haven't been posting negative points, just facts.

Pas

"this is the real world Fleccy .... as if the the above will ever happen .... never ever in a month of proverbial sundays would such thing occur .... and even if it did , then jambones answer applies"

I'll believe it when I see it. I haven't seen anything suggesting big miners are interested in QBT, the updates are all generalisations

Feel free to argue against anything I say, but my point is that anything increasing the Network Hashrate will cause a pushback from the difficulty algorithm, so any initial efficiency increase will reduce at the next difficulty change without other miners doing anything; As per my example where the miners running the software saw a 30% reduction at the first difficulty change. Time will tell if QBT manage to launch their software commercially, or how well it'll work in the real Bitcoin Mining World. As I said previously I don't understand why they haven't live tested their algorithms using live data, benchmarking their rigs with the software, against rigs without the software; Surely testing with live data, using the current difficulty level, would give far better real World test results?

Jambone, what happens if the top miners just agree amongst themselves not bother with the software? Since if they all used it they'd be no better off as far as Block production's concerned, due to an increase in the difficulty level?

"Let us imagine who is going to read your tripe, no one."

It's probably well above your level of understanding anyway, you're right not to read it. I don't want to feel responsible for your braincell bursting.

"QBT algorithm would be much faster than current Algorithms regardless of how much they slowed down the rate."

I'll give an example using made up figures to try and explain my point.

Lets imagine a Bitcon network with 10 miners, all with the same Hashrate and a network difficulty algorithm restricting the network Block production to 10 blocks every 10 minutes.

Now lets imagine someone invents an algorithm that doubles Mining efficiency and 5 out of the ten miners then install the software, initially producing 2 Blocks every 10 minutes:

Before software (Production every 10 minutes)

Each miner produces 1 Block every 10 minutes

Total Blocks produced in 10 minutes =10

5 miners install the software, but before difficulty change

5 Miners without software still produce 1 Block every 10 minutes

5 Miners with software now produce 2 Blocks every ten minutes

Total Blocks produced every 10 minutes =15

Difficulty algorithm later detects increase in Hash rate and adjusts difficulty level to bring production back to 10 blocks every 10 minutes.

5 Miners without software now produce 0.666 Blocks every 10 minutes

5 Miners with software now produce 1.333 Blocks every ten minutes

Total Blocks produced every 10 minutes =10

So even if the other miners do nothing, the efficiency benefit for the miners running the software has reduced by 33% due to the difficulty adjustment. Should the other 5 Miners also install the software, then all 10 miners will be back at square one producing one Block every 10 minutes, and no better off than they were before installing the software. For this example I've assumed the change in difficulty will cause a reduction in Block production of 1/3 across all miners.

"PS, I find it really unbelievable that when FG releases the Commercial RNS that you will snub QBT and the chance to make money"

Jamboner, I've told you countless times I don't invest in anything Crypto related. I watch QBT because I'm interested in the outcome. Time will tell if QBT achieve their long term goals, either way it doesn't matter to me financially.

"Anyways I see the board is engaging with flaccid, someone who didn't even know what uniswap is and he is talking about crypto, absolutely laughable."

KingHas1braincell, what has Uniswap got to do with QBT, or Bitcoin for that matter? You should find a page discussing Ethereum if you want to discuss Uniswap.

"PC you didn’t reply to my post about how it’s a win win for QBT with selected partners or top 25 miners, still a lot of cash to be made once we are commercial"

You're getting ahead of yourself Jambone, any wins aren't currently being telegraphed and there's no timeline for commercial release, or any named partners, or even that the efficiency gains will be realised in a commercial environment. Should everything fall into place for QBT, they'll still be at the mercy of the Bitcoin price and other factors.

"This is why that once QBT are sure their new 160% (2.6 times) increase in efficiency is proven in the real world, should either partner just one miner or aution the rights off to the highest bidder."

If QBT's claims are correct they could try that, but then there'll be pushback under the Blockchain Defensive Patent License:

"How Patents on Blockchain Technology may Facilitate Majority Blockchain Attack

Patents allow the owner to enjoy a competitive limited duration monopoly over a particular field of technology. Currently there is a race amongst various miners to obtain “killer” patents that would essentially allow them to perform Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or any blockchain related mining faster and/or with more efficiency. Such killer patents could give such miners a dangerous monopolistic advantage in the Bitcoin blockchain industry because they could be allowed to undercut their competition. These patent monopoly holders, by virtue of their patent(s) covering the relevant mining technology or invention, would enjoy a pole position to accumulate a very high amount of or even a majority (51%) of the Bitcoin network’s computing or hashing power.

Therefore the Bitcoin mining and broader blockchain ecosystems need to prevent the rise of a dominant Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or other blockchain mining consortium to prevent majority (or near majority) attacks on the Bitcoin blockchain consensus mechanism.

How Do We Help Prevent the Rise of a Dominant Blockchain Mining Consortium?

One of the best ways to do so is to encourage mining individuals or entities to grant their respective mining patents under a mutually defensive patent license that is tailored to address the unique needs of the Bitcoin or other blockchain protocol(s) and prevent any one mining consortium from obtaining the dreaded ability to launch majority (or near majority) attacks.

This is why we have created the Blockchain Defensive Patent License based on publicly available licenses freely available on the Internet. We believe that the wordings of existing defensive patent licenses needed to be tightened to prevent abuse and circumvention by unscrupulous miners gaming both the current wordings and loopholes in the law and practice of patent law.

For these reasons we created a new Blockchain Defensive Patent License system better suited to the unique needs of miners of Bitcoin or other blockchain protocol(s)."

https://blockchaindpl.org/