Member Info for lemmyaquid

"First let me declare my poor knowledge of Bitcoin mining, I am a novice."

Quite a long post. Just the above would have been quite sufficient,

Had to smile at the pics of RKBs incontinence pads. Look strangely like Blackadderesque cod pieces, for those who feel compelled to impress.

For a company with such dramatic earnings growth and potential for expansion, plus a strongly increasing share price, I am quite amazed that hardly anyone has anything to say.

I cant help but to agree. Painful to read and nought but a running series of attempted pointless point scoring by a bunch of self serving and self appointed "vigilantes".

Only visit now and again these days to see if there is any news, nothing else because any attempts at constructive comment are always hijacked by the above.

Pity.

Drutor

The halving and mining difficulty are two completely different things, I think you are confusing the two.

The difficulty in completing a block will be exactly the same immediately before and after the halving event, just the reward for doing so will be cut by 50%.

Collective IQ of about 4 once again demonstrated here.

Go and get a life.

The QBT software we are told is an efficiency boost that increases the probability that a mining machine will beat the competition to complete a block, in this case by making it 2.6x faster. Probability is the key word here.

In a live testing scenario, the competition is every other mining machine in the world, which must be millions, this is why miners need to have ridiculous numbers of machines in order to stay competitive. It would therefore be meaningless to conduct live testing on a single or a small number of machines as even with the efficiency boost the competition would be overwhelming and the probability of completing a block too tiny to be significant over a given reasonable time period.

Meaningful testing, and I am sure potential clients would insist on this, would need to be done on a significantly large number of machines over a given reasonable time period sufficient to provide a reliably measurable success rate with which to compare the success rate of same number of machines without the upgrade over a similar period.

How many machines and for how long? I dont know, though I'd suspect at a minimum, hundreds, and for at least a month.

This would mean that simply setting up a live testing scenario is a considerable and time consuming undertaking requiring the cooperation of a miner and the testing itself a longer process.

In short, IMO those claiming that live testing is instantaneous or something that can be done in a few days are misguided

Forgive the sodding typo.

Ha Ha

Hexam

When the Chinese briefly "banned" btc mining, the global hashrate dropped and sod did the difficulty.

The ensuing growth in N American, and probably other, miners did make that drop short lived though.

So history would suggest that a drop in global hashrate would reduce difficulty.

There have been discussions before about what would happen if everyone used QBT software, massively increasing global hashrate and subsequent ever increasing difficulty, and I agree that in this scenario there would be potential difficulty problems.

I dont see this as a realistic possibility as stated in my other post, but what if a significant proportion of global miners, lets say for the sake of argument a third of global machines used QBT and achieved the 2.6 times efficiency boost?

Historically inprovements in miners over time have been incremental, a small increase in efficiency at a time, and miners have responded by upgrading their Asics, again over time, and this is repeated each time a slightly better Asic comes to market. This, along with increases in miner numbers has pushed up the global hashrate and the difficulty, but the show goes on, with the odd casualty on the way, but the show goes on.

Clearly the 2.6 times efficiency boost offered by QBT is not of the same order of magnitude as historical Asic improvements and is thus a game changer, and if implemented on any scale, on a third of machines say, would effectively and very rapidly render all previously produced non QBT using Asics obsolete. If the supply of QBT software was restricted to a select bunch of miners, the ensuing non viability of the excluded miners all scrabbling around with their vast numbers of obsolete machines competing for a much reduced slice of the pie could even result in a reduction of global hashrate as the weaker ones fall away.

Stranger things have happened.

The key words in your post are, "And what happens when everyone is using QBT Method B? "

I dont see any realistic possibility of "everyone" using QBTs software, particularly as FG refers to selected partners and in any case the main drive to sell this is to US miners who only contribute to a fraction of the global hashrate. Any increase in productivity by miners using QBT would be at the expense of those that didnt rather than significantly pushing up the global hashrate and hense the difficulty.

In the event that somehow "everyone" did end up using QBT, then:

1) We would all be very rich

2) The question would be, what would have happened to any miners that hadnt used QBT? (ie, they would have been at a huge disadvantage or gone bust).

Try and get it right.

QBT has never claimed that they can increase mined coins by 260%, SHA256 determines how many btc overall in a given time period can be mined, so there is no prospect of QBTs software making btc less valuable.

What QBT do claim is that their software will make the mining of Btc 260% more efficient for miners that employ the software. This means that said miners will be able to complete a block more quickly than and at the expense of miners that dont employ the software, and also use less electricity in the process.

Trolling with such transparently defective arguments is a bit pointless and silly really. Food for thought.

Cheers PAS

Does anyone have any take on whether these Bitcoin ETFs (if approved) will be available to UK investors, particularly in ISAs and SIPPs?

Wierdly all the Capital Letters have dissappeared from my previous post.

Hey ho, just one of lifes funny little connumdrums I suppose.

GLA

broomtree

i dont think warrie is talking about holders in these shares who sometimes get disillusioned or worried by percieved lack of progress or whatever and quite reasonably occasionally voice their concerns.

the people he/she is referring to, i think, are those who come on here daily with multiple posts invariably ****ging off the company for any and often invented reasons, often based upon disinformation, distortion or out and out lies. sometimes using multiple ids and seeingly coordinated and not invested in the shares.

in that respect it is black and white, and warrie is quite justified in questioning their motives and suggesting that they move on.

i also recognise that the constant presence of these uninvested and persistent derampers does sometimes inflame emotions, and that under such circumstances people may say things that maybe shouldnt be said in their efforts to protect their investments. that said, the out and out abuse that has occasionally surfaced should not be tollerated from any quarter.

I think Mystic Meg is winding you up, Pas. Though I'm sure you knew that anyway.

Have a good weekend.

Jambone

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

In your 15.44 post you say,

"Biglad, I don’t think there will be exclusivity as FG has always said selected partners,..."

Selected partners precisely means that, exclusivity.

You then go on to say, "I do however agree we should have a cap on who the software goes to and selected trusted partners would be good. " Again exclusivity.

In your 17.09 post, "Hexam, they will never get 100% of the miners, FG has always maintained strategic partners,..."

Strategic partners = exclusivity

I do however agree with you, exclusivity would appear to be the best way forwards when this is eventually taken to market. Big question, how exclusive?

Hexam

Yes you are probably correct about exclusivity, there was some discussion here on this a little while ago.

As opposed to anyone who wants to simply being allowed to sign up at will, maybe one reason why negotiating a deal(s) is taking so long, quite a lot of T&Cs to hammer out and agree upon.

"Funny how one troll account goes and another turns up, what’s the chances"

It does suggest that either its the same troll(s) under a new identity and/or that it/they are organised.