Member Info for lemmyaquid

Btc going crazy now. just passed 45K.

Could be interesting tuesday

Sorry to see you go Addison, your enthusiasm and determination were always a bit of a bright light on this board.

Like Pas, I, quite understand, the board has become a rather ugly place these days and best to be avoided a lot of the time.

Good luck to you and your family, I hope you still have some QBT shares even though you wont be posting here. If not maybe one of these days you find your Unicorn share somewhere else and in a happier place.

I barely bother to look in on this board anymore.

What is the point in reading the repeated blatherings of the same few self inflated bickering fools who seem to spend all and everyday hurling vitriol at each other. Have they not got anything better to do with their time?

Reg

You are joking?

I suppose a problem here is that nobody here probably has the slightest clue how the Italian legal system works. I suspect that you are likely correct, Addison, in suggesting that money may be needed to pay some sort of collection or enforcement agency. If so, I'd hope that we can assume that any such monies paid out will be added to the total amount due.

Another day of inane bickering on offer it would seem.

Addison

"minging deals"

Is that like a soft fork?

Jez

I do not know what QBTs future costs will be, nor do you.

But I do know that QBT will not be a part of the stupidly expensive hash rate arms race that the miners have to indulge in in order to remain competive nor finance the electricity costs of mining.

That is why I say that QBTs costs will be miniscule compared to those of miners.

Jez

Yes, language is important, but you seem to be splitting hairs.

Of course a couple of million is a lot of money, but QBTs costs are miniscule, compared to, say a miner. Yet the potential rewards are massive.

I think Theeeeduke may have been on the pop this evening.

Seeing as there doesnt seem to be anyone else here, I might as well proclaim btc to be now bang on $36,500.

GLA and night night

Sharequests

I agree, it would make no sense at all to install servers, which have to be close to customers without some sort of deal in place.

Any such deal though would in all likelihood be subject to an NDA, at least until everything was up and running, so here, from a shareholders perspective, it would probably make little or no difference to what information we get given, or when.

Is finding a more efficient way to process the data thrown out by SHA256 the same as exposing an unknown vulnerability?

Quite a coincidence you just happening to have a mate at NIST. Just saying.

Addison

I suspect that will be the case regardless of on what basis the product is billed for.

PhildePain

Have you ever tried sucking eggs?

Doesnt sound pleasant

Couldnt agree more

We dont actually know yet what FG might or might not have decided on billing.

That doesnt, as you suggest mean that no decision has been made, and if a decision has been made, it most likely would be a subject of non disclosure at this juncture.

M22C

Of course they can.

The question asked tough was about two possible basic principles of how to bill for the services, both of which encompass a number of unknowns, which is not a purely mathemetical question.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of this, behind closed doors has already been decided, but its interesting to chat about it, coplete with the possible upsided and downsides and variations ,of each option.

Or falling.

Of course, if rising btc prices are so baked in, then surely they could be factored into the subscription price.

Or maybe the subscription price could be varied perhaps monthly on a pre published/agreed sliding scale, if btc price = x, subscription = y.

Do you have any thoughts on how "extra btc mined" is to be definitively determined?

And just another thought, with halving coming up, perhaps payment could be based upon extra number of blocks completed rather than extra number of btc mined. The same but different.

I would suggest extreme caution with the "share of extra bitcoin mined" scenario.

Of course there is a good argument that increasing bitcoin prices will, under this system, automatically and proportionally increase revenues, but with a halving just months away, the number of bicoin being mined will, by definition halve, and so would the revenues, unless the price of btc subsequently and quickly doubles. Of course there is no absolute guarantee that the price of btc will keep on going up (though I also expect it will), especially to the dizzy hights some are predicting. A lot of "iffs" there.

Also. if the miners are then at halving mining half the bitcion that they were before, how does "extra bitcoin" get to be defined?

In fact the whole definition of "extra bitcion mined" and how it is measured needs to be really tightened up and nailed down. Its not even clear to me (as a lay person) how the idea of the number of extra bitcoin mined, even now, pre halving, can be absolutely verified, without the possibility of argument , say, over whether the extra was due to QBT software or a miner seperately buying in a few more Asics or changes in difficulty, up or down.

Maybe my concerns here are due to my lack of IT knowledge, or whether I am mistakenly inventing issues, at the moment my thoughts lead me to favour a subscription model, whereby QBT knows exactly how much revenue it will gain month by month.

I am quite happy for anyone with more knowlwdge to dismantle my assessment.

Thank you Egor for such a thorough, informative and well researched post.

Seems like FG is a bit of a star, I think we are likely very lucky to have him at the helm.