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.
It does indeed seem to be a no brainer to approach the users if the Intel chips as a quick source of revenue.
The only reason that I can think of why FG might not want to do this at this stage is if it clashes with some future or ongoing strategy of building up a relationship wit a particular select group of miners, a strategy that I think he has previously mentioned.
All purely conjecture of course
Sorry, a bit supercillious that was (did I spell that right?)
QBT are essentially a (very specialised) software developer whereas Argo Blockchain mine bitcoins.
Argo, &/or companies like them are potential custiomers of QBT.
QBT arent a Bitcion Miner
If all goes to plan, this weeks gains are just a little preamble, a tentative dip of the toe into the water.
They would have to stump up enough to persuade LTHs to sellup on mass. Interesting times.
My point is, I dont think the board will want to sell at the moment.
That would mean that the only takeover prospect woulf be hostile, ie: a predator effectively buying up suficient numbers of shares to take over control of the board. It would mean a bidding war for QBT shares.
Thinking about the future potential that would be lost in the event of a takeover makes me think that any potential takeover bid would have to be hostile.
Yes, but not just the Quantum mining project, Methoc C , the advanced Asic chip project is also within reach, especially if bolstered by copious funds from methods A &B.
An asic chip and a deal with an asic manufacturer will be another layer of profit, and will effectively in time superseed Methods A & B as they stand.
If QBT is taken over, the supposed cherry on top of the cake, the quantum mining project will also be part of the deal, and lost. Better just to sell the rghts to Methods A & B for the right price and maintain independence if FG and co want to stay in the quantum game.
You need to visit specsavers, that was no bull, it was a Unicorn
Thats right, its already happening.
*sufficientlypowerful Quantum Computer is developed.
Wrong.
QBT have never claimed to be developing a quantum computer, so stop misleading people.
QBT have/are developing a quantum programme ready for use when a sufficiently powerful is developed, most likely by IBM or others.
The problem, as I read it was that the miner wanted the source code for the QBT software.
Regardless of the motivation of the miner could you imagine, or approve, of QBT handing over the blueprints to all of the results of their research, their products?
Can you really imagine "ALL" miners agreeing to ditch thirds of their asics?
And if they did, they would all be constantly looking over their shoulders in case anyone broke ranks, which sooner or later someone would.
Jambone
I suspect that might work, as long as the combined hashrate of the top 10 miners is not (and does not become) too large a proportion of the global total hashrate, allowing the mining difficulty to remain reasonably stable as the miners who do not have the enhancement fall away, thus freeing up the hashing capacity that they currently use.
I think that makes sense.
Seb10
Quite agree with you, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. With your racing cars, if given to all then the race will be faster, but (I presume) all the cars will be bought upfront and the race winner will be down to the driving.
With the software, if given to all, and with a pricing structure based upon (a much mooted) ongoing pricing for extra btc earned, then the ensuing increased btc mining difficulty due to the globally enhanced hashrate will quickly result in no overall btc being earned and hence much reduced earnings for QBT.
OAS14
Not being particularly IT savvy, I have no idea about protecting the software. Though I'd have thought from a commonsense point of view, restricting access to a singlr or chosen fws customers would make it easier.
Exciting stuff Addison.Huge potential, but it does strongly point towards a future strategy of only supplying a single miner, (or maybe a small consortium).
Should QBT offer Methods a & B to a single (or perhaps a select few) miner(s) or make it openly available to all, and how should it be charged for?
To my mind, who it is made available to and how it is charged for are linked. If supplied to a single, or limited number of miners, then a fee based upon extra btc mined (perhaps also with an upfront component) would work very well for QBT, though would pose an existential threat to the excluded miners. The increased hashrate of the select few being paid for by the excluded remainder.
If supplied to all takers, (and I would expect takeup to be huge because those not buying in would probably be driven out of the market) then the ensuing globally incrased hashrate would be rapidly cancelled out by a resultant increased mining .difficulty, and the overall number of extra btc being mined falling back to zero. Thus a pricing structure based upon extra btc mined, whilst initially profitable will in short time stop bringing in returns.
Just a thought.