The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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.
Bob
Where did you get the info that prompted you to claim that QBT have given Intel their software?
Jambone
Whilst I have little doubt that Jack Dorseys plans could offer up a huge opportunity for QBT, that is all a little bit in the future in comparison to the current task, which is surely to sell the SaaS offering to those miners who use bitmain products (which comprise a large proportion of miners).
Especially in this context, do you not think that any discussions between Dorsey and QBT for QBTs software to be directly incorporated into Blocks Asics, (that may or may not be happening), would be considered extremely commercially sensitive information. And for obvious reasons.
Even if such a collaboration were being discussed, I would not expect any public disclosure from either party until at least such time as Dorsey is ready to release his new miners to the industry.
So whats your agenda the Steamy?
I was just thinking that any negotiations with a select group of miners might have an exclusivity aspect. Announcing a deal with anyone else at this point could possibly muddy the waters.
Still all just conjecture.