Member Info for fleccy

"Won’t be long before a deal is announced, unless you know of anyone else who is able to discard 30% of the redundant calculations ? Nope I thought not"

Time will tell. obviously many on here have a vested interest to pump the stock and normally i would say that nothing posted on forums should feed through to the price, but QBT has such a low number of average daily trades it might be an exception to that. In my case I'll believe it when I see it, so far there's been no real news around the commercialisation of their products, or naming of prospective partners. As far as the mining pool, mentioned in yesterdays PRN, there are no details around the size of the pool's, just that "the Company is now in a position to demonstrate its FPGA-based live Bitcoin mining, via a mining pool, to potential clients who it anticipates primarily will be hardware manufacturers". Potential clients who it anticipates will be hardware manufactures doesn't necessarily translate into partnerships. When mining Bitcoin scale counts, so to reliably and adequately demonstrate an improvement based on real time live mining, you would likely need large mining pools to show meaningful differences between the two pools.

Nice and cosy in my man cave.

Here's the problem for anyone buying into QBT on the back of an RNS/PRN; Yesterday the volume of shares traded was around 460 million, with the average non RNS monthly volume well under 100 million. On many days the total number of trades are under 50, so anyone making large buys on days like yesterday could find themselves locked in, or drive the price right down if making a large volume sale. Because of trading costs and the low price per share, if on a platform like Halifax a purchaser/seller would have to trade reasonably large volumes to offset the trading costs, so I don't believe it's a good share for trading.

Yesterday was more of an opportunity for sellers than buyers in my opinion, based on my reasoning in the last paragraph. People who bought in yesterday may have to wait for the next RNS/PRN to see a reasonable profit, assuming the market even like future statements.

This is all my opinion and I could well be wrong, but I'm sceptical that QBT will ever be able to commercialise any of their products, so any opportunities to make money off QBT may well be based purely on speculation and hype around company statements.

Unless QBT release regular RNS's, month on month, this is the likely outcome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4OQbrcDsgs

The price is driven by hype and speculation, much like Bitcoin.

"Can a spread bet close price exceed the market price"

"AI Overview

Learn more

No, the close price of a spread bet cannot exceed the market price because the spread bet is closed at the best available price.

Explanation

A spread bet is a wager on the outcome of an event, where the payoff is based on the accuracy of the wager. The spread is the difference between the buy and sell prices, which are also known as the offer and bid. The buy price is always slightly higher than the market price, and the sell price is always slightly lower.

When a spread bet is closed, it is closed at the best available price. For example, if a buy bet is closed at the current sell price, the price will have moved in the favor of the bettor.

To reduce risk, bettors can use stop-loss orders to automatically close out a losing trade once the market passes a set price level"

I haven't got a clue, I just assumed that your SB close price would have to be at least met by todays share price, as I said I don't spread bet.

So how was your price higher than the highest price recorded today? I don't spread bet, so I'm confused how they can be closed at a higher price than any recorded price for the day.

The highest the stock price reached today was 58.92, that was according to the London Stock Exchange and Google Finance.

"JUNE opened at 58.82 now closed at 59.83"

Do you mean 58.83?

No comments from Savage and PRK today while the share price is moving up?

It's unlikely that WiFi connectivity for EV's will be free Scally and Openreach/BT do make money from wholesale services. If BT didn't see any advantage to covering UK roads with WiFi/5G, then it's unlikely they'd install the infrastructure. There'll be a payback somewhere.

"For method C"

Method C produces the AI Oracle, unless I'm misunderstanding what he said they're one and the same.

"I also cannot grasp why someone like ARM would be interested in obtaining the IP"

He was just using ARM as an example of the operating model they're aiming for, I don't believe he was suggesting ARM would buy the IP rights. What I did pick up on is the fact that they aren't testing Oracle on live data, suggesting that they'll continue to work on efficiency improvements before using on the live network.

It was a trial and they decided not to proceed, they obviously have other plans.

"However, the scheme has now been scrapped with the firm saying it will be focussing on "the Wi-Fi connectivity challenge surrounding EV's" instead"

I have no idea what they'll use their estate of green boxes for, but self driving EV's will require permanent connectivity to AI and traffic control servers. It's possible BT will be looking at other opportunities in preference to EV chargers.

Mole_man seems to be under the delusion that LEO's are a threat to Terrestrial communications. He doesn't appear to take it on board when people explain why LEO's can't ever compete with cell's fed by fibre and close to the user's.

Fly like an Eagle

https://i.postimg.cc/g02WpZX9/winged-horse.jpg

"I`m not sure why you are concerned with the distance from earth, the 25 m/s delay is not of any importance, and signal decay only really occurs in the troposphere, so 10kms horizontal or vertical presents the same problems"

It isn't about the delay, it's about free space and atmospheric losses. A starlink home terminal uses a directional phase array antenna to provide gain communicate with the satellites as they pass over; A mobile phone has very little directional gain and power availability, so distance to cell is very important. The satellites have phased array antenna's, but they also have limitations on the number of devices they can direct their gain toward. I used to work on terrestrial microwave systems and know only too well the effects of distance and atmospheric issues like rain fade.

Satellites and HAP's can backhaul through other Satellites/HAP's, to compensate for localised atmospheric issues, but the distance is still an issue. Physics dictates what can and can't be achieved, and direct to mobile is only really possible in very remote areas with clear line of sight to the satellite. Cell backhaul to satellite is doable, satellite direct to mobile isn't worth pursuing.

I'm not against LEO's, I just don't get what Starlink are trying to achieve with so many satellites. In my opinion small cells with uplink satellite transceiver's and dishes make more sense. You could even uplink/downlink to satellites via HAP's as a compliment to each other. With satellites providing backhaul rather than direct to mobile, you need far fewer satellites and it would provide a superior service. Satellites are just too far away and travelling too fast to talk directly with mobiles on the ground, clearly they're useful for backhauling with far fewer satellites.

"As with any investment, thorough research, careful consideration of personal financial goals"

I'm not sure how you'd research QBT, since the only information available is what the company release themselves. Does anybody know who's on the research teams and how much time they commit to working on QBT's products? Apart from the occasional onboarding and name dropping of a few people, involved in research and the crypto space, details are vague and open to interpretation.

My personal opinion is that the odds are against QBT being able to commercialise a product, but that's been my opinion since the early days of posting on this page. There are various reasons for my opinion, amongst them is the fact that various mathematicians and specialists have been trying to find an alternative to pure brute force since Bitcoin gained popularity; I also suspect that the big miners already operate some form of bespoke front end software to increase the efficiency of operations, would they risk incorporating an unknown QBT product into their systems?

Https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/investors/financial-reporting-and-news/quarterly-results/2020-21/pensions-teach-in-presentation-slides-july-2020.pdf

https://newsroom.bt.com/bt-group-announces-triennial-pension-valuation/#

Some reading for you, the 2020 teach in goes through the structure of the pension scheme and the article updates with more recent figures.

"Fleccy, HAPS made me smile"

Not sure why it made you smile, the technology has already been proved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8p1S2LkZWk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhPk7eGfF6c