Member Info for lemmyaquid

Addison

I expect you are correct, whilst the fate of the final bitcoin is probably not important per se, unless the value of bitcoin also increases exponentially, which it wont, then the rewards for mining the last one will become comparatively so small and the difficulty so ever increasingly great that it will not be a financially viable proposition to even attempt to mine it anyway.
One could ask, what about quantum mining? But I,d suggest the same would apply, that is unless quantum power could actually in some way break the SHA256 algorythm, in which case the fate of bitcoin as a whole would be in the balance.
All a bit acedemic and speculative, but fun to think about.

Personally my take on this is that the very last bitcoin will never actually get mined, as I think that no matter what the global hashrate or the speed of the miners, the difficulty will expand exponentially and the final clinching calculations will never ever get to be made.
Of course I could be wrong, perhaps we will find out in 2040 whatever, perhaps we wont.

A Lotus?

Addisonshare

"I have a feeling that we will be hearing something this week, ....."

If your emails are of the same repetitive sort of standard as your posts here, perhas you have not had a reply because they are getting fed up with you. Just as many on here are getting fed up with your boring, endlessly repetitive, "there will be news tomorrow/this week/next week/this month" groundless posts.

I dont mean to be unjutly harsh, but you, and one or two others incessantly and utterly predictably repeating their own viewpoint at every opportunity have turned reading this board into a sort of mind numbing groundhog day experience.

DYOR, this company is going to be a game changer in the design and production of batterys in all walks of life. This company will become massive.

Dom-Bella
"I like in the video he says the results are unbelievable straight from the boss of QBT."

Just to be a bit pedantic, "unbelievable" could also mean, not to be believed, having no credibility.

Not de ramping, I promise, thats not my style, and would be against my own interests.

Just putting some of this insinuated, possibly misleading and premature over enthusiasm back in the bag where it belongs.

Suthy.

Agreed, but until we get the news of an actual product it is still only potentially about bitcoin mining, and so much more about the prevailing sentiment, both re BTC and QBT itself.
When we do get that news, the relationship betweeen the QBT SP and the price of BTC will undoubtably change, quite how, and whether it will be a straight forward linear alignment remains too be seen. IMO it will have as much to do with the nature of the product, the deal(s) negotiated, and the real life performance, publicity of, and take up of the product.

ARB SP was, as a BTC miner, quite reasonably widely expected to follow the price of BTC, but what many discovered to their cost was that it largely only followed BTC when it dropped but not when it went up. Different scenario though, obviously.

QBT only has a loose correletion with BTC, a small reaction to general sentiment around crypto. It may go up a bit, it will probably go down again a bit. All this will make little difference, unless you are trading. The only significant factor will be future news, when it arrives.

Bl**dy hell. I must be seriously lost and deluded, I thought this was a QBT share forum.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

After his shambolic and not too honest management of Argo Blockchain, which he brought to its knees, from a SP of around 330p to single digits, I would say Peter Wall is the very last person we want to get his mits on our investments.

What on earth are you thinking of, Mister.E?

22Starship22

You said (on this thread),
" I put the email up on here . If you don't believe me , do what I told the other 2 people that abused me , email QBT and find out . Look back through my posts and see if the email is there . I don't lie ."

Obviously I dont doubt your word, Starship, but having glanced through your posts for this year, I cannot find said email. Obviously there is the possibility that I have missed it, so could you please do me the favour of letting me know the date and time of that post, as a fellow investor I too would be interested in reading it.

Thank you kindly in advance.

I have a QBT holding that I intend to hang on to for the big rise when we get the "news".
Looking at the short er term though, if the SP drops a little more, I shall do something I have not done before and buy another smaller tranch and use it just to trade with for as long as the SP drifts up and down, try and get the best of both worlds without risking selling my main holding too early and too cheaply.
And if the news arrives whilst I am holding the trading portion of shares, then win win. In theory anyway.

Not predicting anything, nore presuming that I have any idea in the short term where this is going.
But if this goes down below 1.5 I might buy some more.

Hi Musicman
I think I recall your name from the ARB board. Hope you did better there than I did.

Addison
My take on it was that, because BCH and BSV were both products of btc hard forks, and they are both mined using a variant of SHA 256 which QBT is already intimately involved in, they are an obvious choice of coins as QBT can easily use its existing mining enhancements and apply them to these versions of SHA 256 with very little extra work.
I have no ides why Litecoin wasnt chosen, it too is, I think, mined using a variant of SHA 256. FG did mention that BCH and BSV were low difficulty to mine, maybe that is what swung the decision. From what FG said though, in principle I'd have thought any coin mined with a SHA 256 algorythm variant would technically be a possible candidate for QBTs mining enhancements.
On the other hand, I might have read too much into it.

IMO regulation, unless vindictively proscriptive, will be good for all crypto and will engender confidence in the markets.

Hello Miker
I too have wondered about the possible shape of a successful future QBT and its effect on the overall btc environment.
There has been speculation about for example software leasing to miners, chip design, presumably for licencing to asic manufacturers, and possibly commercial btc mining by QBT itself.

On software leasing I have tried to picture resultant scenarios dependent upon whether the software was made available to a select group of miners or any miner that wanted it. In the latter case, after demonstrable success by the first to take it up, every miner would want it. This though would have the effect of rapidly increasing the global hashrate and consequently the overall mining difficulty iincreasing proportionately, the end result being globally the same numbers of bitcoin being mined as before the software update. This seems to suggest that QBT would have to keep updating the software to allow for the constant increases in difficulty, I am not sure about the practicalities of that. Clearly if the constant upgrades could not be achieved, the miners would still be effectively stuck with using the QBT software, at least unil if/when a better alternative appeared
The question then should be posed, should the software berestricted to select miners? This though would result in bankruptcy among miners that were not among the chosen few,. It would though have the effect of curtailing the global hashrate to some degree and would perhaps make the software leasing concept more sustainable, A higher price could also be asked of the chosen few for such an exclusive agreement. Questions also arise though on the ethics and perhaps the legalities of such an arrangement.
Similar arguments could probably be raised re chips for manufacturers.

As for Quantum Supremacy, I'm not sure that your concerns hold, yes, the other miners would dop out of the equation, but miners are only a part if the btc investment community, and QBT qould simply replace them. QBT with its enhanced capabilities would take over the current miners function, which is essentialy processing transactions into the blockchain and effectively supporting bitcoin and its blockchain, though much more efficiently and cheaply. Btc would remain available to investors, and possibly in a more secure and efficient form and therefore more attractive.
I dont see why btc should be less attractive to investors without the plethora of miners.
Anyway, I must stress that these are just idle musings of mine, I'm sure there is much I may have missed or fail to understand and many will have very different ideas on this.
The potential of QBT is very exciting, but at the same time its success does and will raise issues and problems and opportunities of its own, and maybe its time that they were explored and discussed before we actually get there.

It works sometimes, just look at Arb.
Wasnt quite what I was getting at though, if you need it spelling out it was more a dig at those who incessantly argue and bicker about rampers, derampers etc.
As well as an expression of confidence in the potential of QBT.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that QBT going into commercial btc mining (unless quantum supremacy is achieved) is not only unlikely but also one of the worst moves they could make. Not only would it require major fund raising, it would land us into the cash guzzling Hashrate arms race amongst the other miners and mean that we would be competing with the other miners, who would also be our customers, very much on their own terms, as they would also be using the QBT technology which hopefully we would be leasing to them. What a disfunctional business model that would be.

As for the data centre, we know nothing about that, including the cost of electricity or the capacity of the available supply. All of the equipment in there that you list is research gear, and presumably (hopefully) the research is not all going to just stop on the first software release, and so it wiil not be available for commercial mining, especially the AI gear. Equally any asics currently there will presumably be for and remain for research as well. We dont even know whether the centre would be physically big enough to support a continued research facility and a btc mining plant under one roof.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but going into commercial mining with conventional digital tech is both pie in the sky and terrible strategy. We all saw what nearly and still could happen to Argo Blockchain.

QBTs going to drop right down to 0.95p.
Im not deramping, I would just sort of quite like this to happen so I can buy some more QBT on the cheap.
Im not deramping because I am stating my position square and fair, or even fair and square.
In fact, right now I dont really give a toss whether sp goes up or down.
I dont care a jot who, right now, is ramping or deramping, they make no difference.
Thats because what happens right now is pretty much irrelevent.
Irrelevent because of what we all (or most of us) are here for.
The News.
Because when the News arrives we will be in a different ball game, and whether the sp is .95p or 3.5p now, wont make any difference at all (unless you are a trader).
Its irrelevent.