Member Info for Phimx

Mickydj: You post

" Quoting a single $449m 5nm cost figure applies to full-scale SoC programmes, not automatically to every ASIC concept or development path."

$449 Million for design development only

Mickeydj: You post

" Quoting a single $449m 5nm cost figure applies to full-scale SoC programmes, not automatically to every ASIC concept or development path."

You must be right, I think the cost of a non-SOC design was £32 plus 50p if non standard colors were required.

RNS 23 May 2022:

"... The second knowledge-based mining approach (Method ‘B’) will need the availability of a proprietary ASIC chip which, if successful, probabilistic mining could be improved by several factors compared to today’s deterministic BTC mining using commercial ASIC chips:

So Method B needed a proprietary ASIC also. The twists and turns of these methods is like a mystery tour.

30 November 2021: Gardin states

" NDA signed to provide QBT with

5nm Technology for Proprietary Bitcoin mining ASIC

The board of Quantum Blockchain Technologies (AIM: QBT) is pleased to announce that it has made the key decision to focus on the development of the more efficient 5nm Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”), rather than a 7nm ASIC (as announced on 5 November 2021), to use as its proprietary Bitcoin mining tool."

In 2023 ARM INC estimated the cost of producing a 5 nm ASIC at $449 Million. Make your own decision as to how feasible and probable that was !

With hindsight, in 2026 we know it was and is - highly improbable. More Gardin claims that came to nothing

Mthanji: You post

" You Just lied again phimx no one has you mixed up anyone - look at all those statements from mikedj post"

I don't see the word 'scam' in those examples therefore you must be thinking of another person

Mickeydj:

It's a pity you haven't appended a reference date to those extracts. Whilst some I recognise and defend others I don't recognise. Also I would have to see the context.

Mrhanji: You post

"I'm not the one posting 24/7 on how QBT tech don't work and its a scam lol your doing this"

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I refer to these companies as having non-commercial projects. In general they have some semblance of a project to justify loosely what they make claims for. Usually it is difficult to determine exactly what technology they actually have and under what conditions or limits their claims are valid e.g. what references they use for measurement. Again, in general they claim many discussions are taking place but rarely do these discussions reach a conclusion or the results informed to shareholders. Many placings and consolidation take place and employees are minimal.

In short everything is vague and difficult to pin down.

I very much doubt I have ever called this a scam,

Anyone care to guess at why Gardin writes this ?

" QBT’s Method B, guides the search, by deciding where the most promising winning hashes are likely to be found in the 2^1024 search space."

Awl007: You post

"There was another poster with username bobscat"

Yes it was Bobsocks, he's just admitted he is Ellipses.

And there I was thinking we were all the the same embodiment!

Mrhanji:

I know you wouldn't want to appear hypocritical! So why not tell everyone what you background and qualifications are.

Awl007: You post

" I believe Brewhaha had set up a solo miner mcthingey"

Gosh I'd forgotten about Brewhaha. I think I used to read Bobsock's posts before I actually started to post here.

Mickydj: You post

" So we see Phimx that you are still also posting false and misleading information, Bobsocks/ellipsis doesn't actually mine Bitcoin himself"

Then that's my mistake. I hope you'll grant me permission to make me one or two.

I was under the impression, from a while back, that you were Bobsocks and after being banned from LSE then posted elsewhere as Ellipses. I'm sure Bobsocks had his own miner and his posts were also entertaining.

Mickydj: You post

" This is just another attempt to reframe disagreement as ignorance and elevate a preferred subset of posters as arbiters of truth. Owning mining hardware or claiming hands-on experience does not confer authority over interpreting company disclosures, nor does it turn inference into fact."

Im sure someone here knows what this means. It certainly doesn't mean I was mistake in thinking very few people here understand Bitcoin mining. As for reframing disagreement as ignorance, I'm not convinced you trying to link disagreement through discussion and engagement to my observation of investors ignorance is valid. There is no disagreement with 'technical' speculation or inference simply because ignorance prevents the ignorant from disagreeing.More likely disagreement occurs for subjects where there is little ignorance but causal from differing variations and expectations in inference of vague and poorly determined and presented factual content.

Gosh this drivel is easy to write I'll have to hone my verbiage skills when I have the time!

What is very obvious, there is a distinct lack of knowledgeable investors in this share. Bobsocks/ellipsis has a good grasp of Bitcoin and actually mines Bitcoin himself. I assume the vast majority are here for the pumps and dumps and little else. The active posters are very few, take away the one-liners and fly-by-nights and your dealing with a handful.

Doyezee:

Some time ago I Googled the reason for very small trades e.g. 1 or 2. There were several plausible reasons given

Mrhanji: You post

"

Price: 0.575

Strong Buy

RE: NO ASIC REQUIREDToday 11:05

Phimx still waiting on anything to confirm what makes you an authority on this subject"

If one day I ever claim I am an authority. i'll let you know.

I think, you thinking I am an authority on this subject indicates your ignorance of said subject!

Mickdj: You post

" You’re still doing exactly what’s been pointed out repeatedly: constructing a narrative by hindsight and presenting it as fact."

My apologies but hindsight is all I have, foresight is not one of my talents. I don't think I'm claiming anything as fact it is inference. I'm forming my opinion from the available data, very little, and constructing my version of what I think happened and is happening. That is what normal sensible people do most of the time. You seem to think it is inadmissible on a chat board. Why not identify holes in my argument rather than the construction of the argument.

Inference, you agreed earlier, I was entitled to but now you present it as somehow invalid. What I present as fact is my version of several possibilities.

Doyzee:

There has to be a limit to the shares held in 'stock' after all a large stock would present a risk should the company publish bad news.

It looks like another day of buying ahead, I'm not complaining too much.

Mickydj and MrHanji:

I wouldn't waste anymore of your time requesting my personal details. I have no intention of doing so particularly to people that fail to do so themselves.

I'm also surprised by your apparent ignorance of the chat rules Mickdj!

LSE chat rules also state:

" Do not share personal information of yourself or others."