Member Info for lemmyaquid

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.

Suggestions have been made as to whether QBT may be subjected to a buyout.

Obviously this would result in a shot in the arm to the SP.

However no mention has been made in this context to QBTs ultimate goal, Quantum mining. Should QBT be bought out, then would not the Quantum Mining Algorythm that QBT have/are developing then become the property of the buyer?

IF QBT and shareholders want to keep ownership of the Quantum Mining project, does not this rule out being the subject of a buyout?

If this is the case, and if the sort of sums required for a buyout appear on the table, perhaps a better approach might be for QBT to sell the source code for methods A & B outright to the highest bidder and then use the (presumably considerable) proceeds for further research orwhatever

It doesnt make any sense Addison.

According to the SP chart it closed at 0.975p on wednesday which, now at 0.95p, meant it dropped on thursday. Yet it also says, UP by 0.3p ( +31.58%).

Seems someone has fouled up bigtime, I would love to know what has been going on, but somehow doubt that we will ever really find out.

Its probably far more common than most people think, I.m getting on a bit now, late 60s, but I've lost three friends/ aquaintances over the years who have taken their own lives. Good and important posts, well done for speaking up on such a difficult issue, and sympathy for your sad losses.

RE Quantum Mining.

Not so sure, a Bitcoin is a Bitcoin, and there can only be so many of them regardless of how they are mined or who has mined them. Are bitcoin investors concerned with, or even aware of who has mined their bitcoin?

Addisson

If FG had bought a few Asics for further research purposes, are you really sure that he would, "have to tell us"?

Agree. I would be very surprised if any miner allowing QBT to use their machines for testing would want the rest of the world to know about it at this stage. Hence it would be subject to and NDA, hence no published news.

Agree there Suthy. Also, I think it is very likely that any selected/potential partner is not necessarily going to want the rest of the world to know about it until all is sorted out and ready to run.

Likely QBT could blow any deal by spilling the beans prematurely.

But yes, it is frustrating. Very.

Fleccy

UpdateToday 13:41

Sorry, lost post part way through writing it. To continue:

Just a casual observation on there being no update today.

This is actually still in line (just) with the assertion that there would be an update before end April.

Some have also been speculating that no update yet means that the Nomad must have found something wrong or bad in any update that may have been released. This is also incorrect.

The last business day before today was Fri, 28 April. Unless the Nomad people work weekends or bank holidays, which I doubt, then any update that may have been released on Friday would likely not have been picked up and read by Nomad until this morning, who would then have to refer back to QBT as to whether or not it is acceptable. This means the first opportunity to release the update would be tomorrow. Any later of course would merit asking the questions thatothers have prematurely posed

Just a casual observation on there being no update today.

This is actually still in line (just) with the assertion that there would be an update before end April.

Some have also been speculating that no update yet means that the N

Given that it was 01.17 when you posted and Monday is a bank holiday, its not very likely that an RNS would have arrived on your doorstep. A bit of a vexatious complaint In this instance, I think.

I am still puzzled by "Sunrise Tech Group" apparently listed as the patent applicant. What is their relationship to QBT?

If anyone could please enlighten me?

Actually, scrub that latest blather of mine as the meanderings of a sleep deprived and lost soul.

Cheers and nite nite.

Addison

I think that maybe you are confusing the effects of a Halving with those of an increasing Mining Difficulty, they are completely different fom each other.

I dont think the miners will be updating their machines for the halving (though they may well buy more), but I am sure that given viable options, they will scramble to get hold of anything that helps them get round increases in difficulty.

If QBT were to have an NDA with Fujitsu, or any other similar major company, QBT would be very much a junior partner and any deveopments, product releases, information releases would be completely on the terms of the major partner.
Would perhaps explain the lack of any concrete information updates over recent months.

Just a thought inspired by a previous post.
Its been suggested that QBT may start mining on their own account, perhaps financed by the court money and presumably using their 30% efficiency uplift.
If this were to be the case, then would it not be madness to introduce this efficiency uplift to the wider market prior to QBT starting mining themselves?
Surely, in these circumstances, the most profitable way would be to start mining on their own account and using the uplift, coin in on the bitcoin mined and use this debut as an introduction / demonstration to the wider industry for the benefits of QBTs technology.
The alternative of releasing the uplift first would result in QBTs mining debut being in direct competion with already uplifted and thus more efficient companies. Which all sounds a bit daft.
Maybe that is why QBT dont seem to be in too much hurry to release their tech?
All conjecture of course.