Member Info for Phimx

Mickydj: You post

" I put it to you that you have a financial interest in suppressing the share price."

I put it to you that is pure unadulterated misguided and misleading nonsense. The Imagination and desperation of a naive investor that now realises he made a terrible error putting too much money into a very speculative AIM gamble.

Learn your lesson the hard way sonny, you deserve it.

Mickydj: You post

" Once a poster admits to holding a short position, their posts are no longer neutral commentary; they are interested speech.’"

And just as equally. Once a poster, like you, holds a long position their posts are no longer neutral commentary...

Could it be any other way ?

Mickdj:

You'll accuse everything and everyone except the guy pocketing the money and failing to provide answers.

Without answers the number of critics will only increase.

The balance of long and short is determined by company performance, continued failure to convert 'break-throughs' into deals has swung sentiment to the negative not conspiracy.

Ask Gardin why he continues to make claims that fall flat!! He is the only one with the real answers.

Usersteve:

Well written, Mickdj seems to want to make a mountain out of the molehill. Mickydj has persisted in claiming something which goes against the common usage and understanding of plain English. He uses it to press home his paranoid conspiracy theories. It was a minor point and I also made that clear previously, an observation of Gardins misuse of the term 'third party'

Have a rest Micky, you need it.

Mickeydj:

You post

" Investopedia’s definition refers to neutral intermediaries, not to how companies describe external counterparties in RNSs."

Wow glad we sorted out Investopedias role in the thread !

Also you post

" Investopedia’s definition refers to neutral intermediaries, not to how companies describe external counterparties in RNSs."

I didn't realise investopedia had superceded contract law. Why are independent ASIC manufacturers being dragged into a deal between QBT and 3 NDA ASIC companies ?

And also

" This is just semantic diversion dressed up"

Never a truer word bgut why haven't you mentioned Tesla as a neutral intermediaries

Probably the most bizzare thread I've been involved in

Mickydj: You post

"Independent ASIC manufacturers are third parties relative to QBT by any normal commercial definition"

You continue to waffle about independent ASIC manufacturers, they are not part of this discussion, you introduced them for an unknown reason.

In terms of a business arrangement, there are two parties involved in this thread

1. QBT would be the first party

2. The second parties I.e. the 3 ASIC manufacturers subject to a NDA and who have also built their own mining rigs. The same rigs that QBT is supposedly installing their software on. It is assumed each arrangement has a seperate set of terms.

It isn't semantics, there are only first and multiple second parties involved here. It is a convention to describe the concerned parties so. Invent your own definitions if you wish but you may find it difficult communicating with the rest of the English speaking world.

How bizarre!

Mickydj:

No.

As can be plainly seen from my post, I say that Gardin is incorrect. I then also state " I think " Mickydj .... I do not know for sure that this Gardin statement was used by you to claim third party testing.

I don't know why you mention independent ASIC manufacturers, of course other ASIC manufacturers are excluded, the piece relates specifically to the 3 NDA manufacturers and no others. The parties are QBT and the ASIC manufacturers that make their own mining rigs I.e. the second parties. There are no third parties !

RNS 5 December 2025

"QBT has entered into three non-disclosure agreements ("NDA") with three separate ASIC manufacturers, each of which has developed its own Bitcoin mining rig.

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"

Gardin misuses the term 'third party", there is no third party involved in what he describes above. There are other examples in other RNS.

I think Mickydj is using this release to claim that third party Testing is taking place. A minor point I know but it muddies the water.

If you can't beat em, delete their posts.

Mickydj strangely silent ?

RNS: 12 March 2025

Finally some ASIC news !!

"QBT proprietary ASIC chip

On 13 March 2024, the Company announced an update about its efforts to develop a prototype version of an in-house proprietary ASIC chip using large scale integration for demo purposes. In the last few months, this internal project has been put on hold to enable the focus of the design team to be temporarily redirected to support the R&D AI teams, in particular Method C's AI Oracle project"

RNS 30 November 2021.

How many of you were enticed to buy in based upon this exciting news ??? An ASIC expected to to be twice as fast !! What expectations made them think they could outperform everyone else ?? Fantasy I guess.

"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.

This decision was taken following a recent market announcement by a leading international Bitcoin mining equipment manufacturer that it will use 5nm ASICs for its the next generation of Bitcoin miners, which it expects to release in the second half of 2022. Accordingly, QBT has updated its development programme for the prototyping and industrial manufacturing of its proprietary Bitcoin mining, to use the 5nm ASIC.

Based on the Company’s internal projections, it believes that its previously planned optimised 7nm ASIC, would run at the same speed as the proposed 5nm ASIC, as announced by the above-mentioned Bitcoin miner manufacturer; this calculation is assuming the same number of ASICs will be used in the next mining model, as the above-mentioned miner currently applies to its existing model.

The rationale to move from a 7nm to 5nm, is because the estimated speed of QBT’s proprietary Bitcoin mining ASIC is expected to be at least twice as fast as the leading international Bitcoin miner manufacturer, before taking into account the optimisations of a second patent under development, which are yet to be factored in."

Mrhanji: You post

"@awl007 stop thanking phimx its just raising their ego and importance and encouraging them post more none sense"

I've made it, fame at last !

Mickydj: You post

" is veiled intimidation and aligns with share-bashing tactics aimed at silencing scrutiny."

Looks like your are inferring a lot from my posts and of course your facts are nowhere to be seen.

You love to dramatise your make believe.

Cole69: You post

" I can confirm that a 2nd phone was produced by FG when he was pushed about what was happening regarding mining. Nobody there was close enough to see what was actually on the phone, FG did however seem proud of the achievements."

No-one was close enough to see, interesting presumably he held up a phone as some kind of proof that it all worked.

Seems it was simply the Satoshi results mined by the QBT pool, or perhaps a pool .. somewhere.

Far from a convincing demo !

Thanks for your input nice to here from someone actually present

Mickydj: You post

" Forum behavior: Suggesting that reporting factual updates “will harm your investment” is veiled intimidation and aligns with share-bashing tactics aimed at silencing scrutiny."

Think you've got the wrong end of the stick there

Mickydj:

The word ' big'written on a sheet of paper is a physical fact and verifiable for all to see. But meaning is not a fact, what are 'big' ASIC manufacturers. That tells me very little about the size of the manufacturer, I have to infer the meaning, have an educated guess.

You are saying because it appears in a RNS then it is a fact they are discussing with a 'big ASIC manufacturer'

If there are two meanings to a sentence are there two facts ?

Mrhanji: You post

"When since then there's been many developments"

Not one of your better posts. Are you implying there has been advances in the English language to the concept of the word development?

I fail to see how your post is relevant to my reply to Awl007.

Mickydj:

Inference permeates our every chat and interaction with others . It arises because insufficient information is provided for everyone to reach the same answer or conclusion. I would say when someone uses the word big then big is not a definite fact, we are forced to apply our individual concept of big, paying heed to the context. Therefore what appear to be facts are in fact sometimes not.

But the nuances of language are far too involved for a BB so you'll just have to keep reporting everything that you think will harm your investment

Awl007: You post

" So question 1. Is it possible to demonstrate on an IPhone the workings of the 3 methods?"

A loaded question this

Another issue raised by interpretation! What does demonstrate mean in this context. Gardin has or did have, a childish animation of two computer screens clocking up numbers, on the web site. It's supposed to represent the advantage of methods.

How can the workings of the Methods be demonstrated - full stop.?

There is a difference between demonstrating results and workings. It is relatively easy to demonstrate the advantages of a pulley system but more difficult to demonstrate how it obtains it's advantage I.e. it's workings.

I think your question is wrong, no I'm not a politician. But on the other hand it is possible a streaming result of hashes from a mining rig actively mining Bitcoin could demonstrate 'something'

Why would you demonstrate your 'methods' your proprietary secrets to anyone ?

Take it with a pinch of salt !