Member Info for Phimx

Mickeydj has always been more interested in maligning anyone posting negatively about QBT rather than Gardin's ever changing game plan or his inaccurate fantasy predictions and ambitions.

Mickydj must have far too much invested and it's obvious to all, QBT is not going to deliver the great expectations that Gardin fluffed up to make his money.

Micky can support Gardin's fantasy all he wants but Gardin isn't going to support Mickey's dream.

Mickydj: You post

" Yet almost every one of your arguments is built entirely from QBT RNSs, QBT interviews and QBT statements"

Seriously thats one of the daftest statements ive read from QBT supporters! Where else do you expect me to get information from, make it up like the rampers do?

Gardin is the only source of information be it true or wishful thinking.

I either argue from the point of view he is genuine or alternatively he is making it up. Mostly I think he is embellishing this amateurish no-hope project to suggest to investors it is something that it isn't i.e. a grand life-changing opportunity. For him I'm sure it will be as he waltzes off to his London club to play the great Italian deal maker.

Mickydj:

I normally add provisos when quoting Gardins statements such as 'supposedly' !

I believe Gardin carefully crafts PRNs to give an impression of great work underway. We are led to believe Q T has premises in Oregon, London, Munich and Milan. What does QBT have in Munich ? Anyone have any addresses or phone numbers for QBTs labs ??

What happens in the German and UK labs, anything or nothing.

Can anyone define what a lab is ?

Is this how a research company, making huge breakthroughs in cryptography, goes about its business, taking photographs of its CEO outside a building delivering suitcases, truly a joke!

It is one big amateurish fantasy of one man and a shoestring.

Who is the real CRO Gardin or Pizzi ? Does Gardin even remember making Pizzi the CRO ?

Mickdj: You post

"Another hard fact:

QBT has signed NDAs.

QBT received third-party mining rigs.

QBT received an MDK.

QBT received source code access.

QBT met with an ASIC manufacturer at Bitcoin 2026.

QBT has a live testing environment running in Milan.

Those are facts too."

No they are not facts, they are statements made by Gardin, totally unverified. Statements made by Gardin, we all know, mostly do not generate reality in the fullness of time. I'll not bother repeating the failures/fantasies again!

Inforapennyortwo: You post

"industry secrets on where to place on ASIC, more than helpful I’m sure was mentioned in an interview"

Place what on the ASIC, a cup of coffee to cup it warm ?

Are you unable to read, the ASIC cannot be altered once manufactured. Method C software, as you might guess is software, it runs on the mining rig as a change to part of the OS (CGminer ?) and on the ASIC control board as firmware.

Nothing is placed in or on the ASIC.

Mickgdn : You post

" Because if you truly believed the story was dead years ago, there would be nothing left to analyse."

But there is, it erupts from Gardin's mouth in a mumbling, bumbling, incoherent, shifting projection of promise. Guaranteed to overshoot any hastily promised time scale. The guy is a marvel and he only gets £16,250 per month for those performance, oh and plus any perks, I'm sure there are plenty.

Mrhanji: You post

" One of these clowns not sure which one is also buy 10 and selling in 1s straight after "

You cannot be serious?

Selling in 1s to keep the price down haha hahaha hahahaha

Inforapennyortwo: You post

" Steve, that’s not the case though is it, from what I have read or listened to, each ASIC type, requires a different version of Method C applied to it.

No, the aim is to insert a small logic circuit within the clients ASIC i.e. the Oracle. The Oracle supposedly filters individual inputs before they reach the many hundreds of SHA256 Hashing circuits. Inputs which have no chance of success are discarded before being hashed thereby saving energy or allowing additional potentially winning hashes to be processed. Gardin has incorrectly stated a 30% increase in hashing rate can be had or a saving of 30% in energy compared to the same ASIC without the Oracle. But it is a 42% increase in hashing rate which can be achieved by discarding 30% of the inputs, as any 12 year old can calculate. Since the Oracle can only be inserted into the ASIC at the design stage of any new ASIC it is not a simple or cheap exercise. For the software version of Method C Gardin had to change his story, because the Oracle supposedly ran on a slow microcontroller ESP32 the Oracle now had to discard whole swathes of Nonces to be able to keep pace with the ASIC I.e. 4.3 billion at a time.

If you are going to invest it would pay to have at least the vaguest idea of what's being proposed by Gardin. You also need to read at least the last 3 months of postings here, pro and against.

Usersteve: You post

" Prototype chips typically require more than one round of fabrication/testing, as mistakes and error are invariably found and will need re-design, especially when it is a company's very first chip."

The logical for any ASIC would normally be protyped on a FPGA, this would confirm the logic element aspect of the design but not the performance, at least not with any certainty. The Placing and routing is a major factor in ultimate performance, this is where the ASIC has clear advantages over the FPGA. With maybe 2,000 individual SHA256 identical hashers minute savings x2000 can have an impact on the chips speed and efficiency.

Usersteve: You post

" if the ASIC manufacturer believed QBT's claims, then why would they waste time on testing? Surely they'd sign a deal immediately so that they could start making money right away. Yes?"

Quite right. Gardin has stated a couple of times QBT has amassed huge amounts of test data, so much in fact it broke their Peta byte server. Surely with all the testing, the SaaS application and FPGA they had sufficient evidence to convince the ASIC manufacturer they had something worthwhile. Perhaps not the finished product but remember also they are supposed to have an ASIC design sat in storage as an asset.

Even so so they couldn't even generate a MoU from the ASIC manufacturer. In fact the ASIC manufacturer does not want their name associated with QBT perhaps worried they may become a laughing stock in the industry!

Mickydj: You post

" The reality is that nobody appointed these people as guardians of the investing public."

Spot on Mickydj, its good that there are still people in the UK willing to defend the weak and naive, the easily fooled? They spend their time and effort freely suffering insults and lies from those that are only here for a fast buck, at any cost.

Surely we all deserve recognition, the state isn't upholding their obligations to protect the public. Perhaps we'll get our reward in the next honours list !

Mickydj: You post

" Now QBT has actual third-party mining rigs, an MDK, source-code access, technical documentation, manufacturer engagement and a defined testing route."

Says Gardin !

And the problem is, can what Gardin says be trusted given past performance ?

The market says no !

Mrhanji: You post

" Does qbt need to update us on the meeting with asic manufacturer?"

What meeting ?

Usersteve: You post

" Let's say they believed the PRN news and invested £25,000 at the closing share price of 2.9p, a total of about 860m shares."

What !

Mickydj:

Why don't you take your dossier to the FCA and tell them how you've uncovered an organised crime ring, preventing QBT from commercialisation of their wonder technology!

5 Dec 2025:

"The process has reached the stage where these three companies will now be needing to make their mining rigs available to QBT's testing team at its laboratory in Milan, with access to their relevant source code. This will allow QBT to install the software version of Method C AI Oracle, the launch of which was announced on 12 November 2025, onto the third-party mining rigs. This will be the first step to allow each miner to assess the performance of the higher quality hashing rate provided by Method C."

So back on 5 Dec 2025 QBT were waiting to receive mining rigs, it is now June 2026. It has taken 6 months to obtain the rigs and we assume start testing but also note " this will be the first step ..."

Already we know that only one manufacturer's miner is, supposedly, being modified.

How long will it take before the manufacturer completes their own testing - after summer perhaps !

Mickydj: You post

" At some point readers should ask themselves whether these predictions are analysis or just another way of constantly creating a sense of impending doom."

The mistake investors make is underestimating the length of time the plates can be kept spinning. But, as can be seen here, the wider market loses interest. Eventually even the dumbest investors catch-on that the wonder tech is not going to deliver the 100 bagger promise.

Wait and see, you'll have lots of time to ponder!

19 June 2025:

" As previously reported, the Company confidently believes its three Methods (namely Method A, Method B and Method C) represent a breakthrough achievement in the industry and, in Las Vegas, the Company demonstrated compelling evidence that using its proprietary AI to increase the quality hashing performance was a reality. In one example, for Method A, this was accomplished by running two identical ASIC miners, in real-time mining mode, with the same clock frequency and thermal conditions; one mining with its native GCminer operating system and one with a modified CGminer, which included QBT AI software. The results clearly showed that using QBT AI software resulted in producing more pool rewards per unit of time."

So what was the advantage as demonstrated ? It seems everyone but investors can have the information copying investors, the owners of the company !!

Come on Gardin spill the bean.

RNS: 24 March 2026

" Having performed exhaustive tests on the simulator for many months, the Company believes that the AI Oracle will duly perform when scaled-up to a multiple ASIC miner although there cannot be guarantee at this stage"

Here's another snippet of Gardin's garbage to add to the list. So we bear in mind the job of the Oracle is to process inputs, intended to be passed to a hashing device, and filter out those inputs that have no possibility of producing a successful hash. All very simple and as Gardin has explained the Oracle is independent of the ASIC, the hashing device in this case.

So after 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗵𝗮𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 he still can't guarantee it will work when scaled up to a multiple ASIC

miner !!!

What on earth do multiple ASICs have to do with how the Oracle performs its job ???

Does the Oracle predict losers or not ? And how well ?

Asterisk: You post

" Absence of updates” isn’t proof of failure, it just increases uncertainty. You’re turning a lack of evidence into a conclusion, which doesn’t logically hold.It is true that delays and pivots have happened before, and that justifies caution but not certainty.

Your postings follow Mickydj's style. This board is not a forum for a debate on the science of logic or philosophy. It is a forum for investors trying to make money. I'll grant you certainty cannot be proven with rigorous logic or evidence. One of the reasons is Gardin produces vague, garbled ambiguous information of little sensible data. My recent post highlights his gibberish nonsense of Methos C 10% advantage, as far as I can decode it is no such thing.

The commonsense conclusions to be reached from Gardin's repeated failures, pivots and lack of sensible informationation points to no commercially worthwhile project being developed. Why should sceptics have to provide rigorous proof for his failings when he can't provide any for QBTs claims.

The whole story has been one amateurish story. Pathetic racing car videos. Photos of a suitcase to divert attention from the lack of evidence of his attendance at Nashville 2026 earlier this year.

His claim for Method C hardware was flawed, claiming 30% electrical efficiency gain or a 30% hashing rate increase but very simple maths shows the hash rate increase is a 42% not 30% gain.

Why do rampers have to spend so much time making excuses for this company if it is a genuine research organisation staffed, now in 4 locations worldwide, by world class people ?

It doesn't ring true we all know it, why the pretence ?