Member Info for Phimx

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 !

Mickdj:

The trouble with your philosophy of facts is, they don't follow your preferred interpretation, in real life everyday speech, including RNS and interviews.

When Gardin says or writes "we are in discussion with a big ASIC manufacturer" there is much assumed by the receiver of the information. First of all the word 'discussion' surely Gardin can't mean 'we are in discussion this very moment" ?? So then we could ask how often ? Is it face to face talks ? Zoom discussions? An exchange of emails ? Who are 'we'? What is being discussed?

A single communication between CEOs, engineers or sales team could be defined as discussions if it ended with "I'll let you know"

Of course the word 'big' itself is open to wild speculation.

The point of this ramble is language and it's misuse is endemic. I've said here, over the years, "communication- the work of the devil" . Virtually every statement made by Gardin can be analysed to the death and many interpretations deduced.

Your ideal of dealing with 'facts' is simply not easy to follow in practise. Speculating what Gardin writes and says drives discussion here.

Time will decide !

Usersteve: You highlighted the following RNS text

"The test results show that QBT’s algorithm, known as Method B, has *theoretically* increased the rate of successful bitcoin mining by 2.6 times"

You have overlooked the ambiguity, I.e. what is meant by "successful bitcoin mining" ? To my knowledge QBT have never announced mining an actual block Bitcoin and using 2 FPGA systems they are very unlikely to do so. We are led to believe the Methods increase the chances of finding the block winning hash but Increasing a miniscule probability still makes it incredibly unlikely.

"Increasing the probability of finding the block Bitcoin winning hash by 2.6 times ..." is more like what they should be claiming.

From memory the only thing they have actually claimed is a few Satoshi from a mining pool. Since they are mining in a pool the improved performance of a single FPGA miner in the pool would be negligee. I'll leave the maths to a statistician to determine how long you would have to mine before you could claim better results by using one FPGA rig + Method. Of course there would be many provisos involved.

Finding Share hashes could be considered successful bitcoin mining!!

Usersteve:

Spot on.

Differentiating Micky's words from those he's citing is sometimes not clear cut.

27 April 2024 Mickdj posts

" I can't see this method C being worth a great deal to be honest, but at least if they succeed it will generate some kind of revenue for the company, big if however. The longer this goes on the riskier this gets, and its already a huge risk."

Apologies for misleading the board Mick isn't a big investor, he is a VERY big investor

30 April 2020 Micky posted

" I am a VERY big long term investor. I agree whole heartedly with the comments below. When the RNS that we await drops, this will be proven a good investment."

May have been Allforprofit

Awl:

Was it you posted yesterday asking Mickydj to post his experience and credentials? It looks like Micky didn't like that and had it removed.

He can't abide being shown for what he is. Suffering from Trumpitis I think!

Mickydj: You post

" ...but because understanding your background helps readers weigh evidence-based arguments versus personal opinion.

If there is evidence available then readers can assess the evidence without recourse to the person producing the evidence. If there is no evidence then it must be personal opinion or speculation or whatever any wishes to call it. I would hate for my personal details to sway the opinion of readers or introduce unnecessary bias.

If you think background is so important why not tell everyone yours?

Mickydj: You post

" I have asked previously about your professional or academic background that informs your perspective here, but received no response. Could you clarify it now? It would help distinguish between evidence-based discussion and speculation."

My personal details have no bearing whatsoever on the discussions taking place here. Evidence is evidence generally culled from public sources and presented in the forum. Speculation is exactly that, the various possibilities that could happen based upon a multitude of real events, probabilities and imagination.

Why don't you explain why you think your £5000 investment here is big?

And to quote your response to questions from others "I have no intention of doing what you want"

Mickydj:

Ah yes the vague ambiguous "experiment" narrative. With an equally vague startup. The purpose of the joint venture, documentation notably absent, is to QBT benefit - how.

On the verge of greatness and vast wealth and he turns to a startup for help -- spin around !

Mickdj: You post

" That’s where time and money are going right now"

Yes yes and all without any contracts, deals, Heads of Terms or Memorandums being signed. They all trust each other, pull the other one.

Mickdj: You posted

" Unless there’s an RNS saying it’s cancelled, sold, or written off, calling it abandoned is narrative, not evidence."

The point is, how long do investors wait before it is declared dead, because there is no evidence or RNS from Gardin. He prefers the fade away, more of his drivel lost in the mists of time.

Mickydj: You post

" Saying “it must be dead because there’s been no news” is an opinion, not a fact."

Your use of quotations implies I wrote those words, incorrect. What I wrote was

" I think most reasonable and right minded people will consider said project dead, abandoned, no longer of any relevance to possible income."

In the context of no progress in over 2 years !

Mickydj: You post

" Silence is not the same as cancellation. Projects get paused, reprioritised or folded into other work, that’s normal in R&D led companies.

Couldn't agree more. BUT when £2,000,000 has been raised from investors for a revenue earning project and considering the importance of the project in relation to the companies previous lack of earnings, over many years; when does silence become failure. When does zero news become abandonment ?

It would seem in your view of this business, once a claim is made by Gardin then it's scope is indefinite. Clearly to investors that is unrealistic. If project definitions, timelines costs etc change significantly, then investors should be informed.

I think most reasonable and right minded people will consider said project dead, abandoned, no longer of any relevance to possible income.

Keep those plates spinning Micky. I don't think you are even fooling yourself.

Mickdj: You post

" Amazing how the thread’s “run out of things to say”..."

Perhaps that's because reliable follow-on information isn't communicated to investors. A good example is the SaaS infrastructure. You posted

" UserSteve is presenting speculation as if it were insight. There was never an RNS explicitly stating that SaaS was abandoned"

At what point does the SaaS become "abandoned". After over two years of zero progress of this product, intended to bring in revenue, I think it is no longer speculation to say it is abandoned.

To think it is still active is beyond sensible probability.

Mickydj: You post

" UserSteve is presenting speculation as if it were insight. There was never an RNS explicitly stating that SaaS was abandoned ..."

Micky, difficult to abandon something that never began!

Mickydj: You post

"Investors should rely on official RNS disclosures, financial statements, and verifiable project updates rather than forum speculation."

I'm not exactly sure what can be verifiable regarding anything Gardin reports. But acting as the CEO Gardin has a responsibility in law to report truthfully. If what he reports fails to materialise then he should then report why it didn't. If he continually reports and fails, then it is reasonable to assume it is deliberate and intended to mislead investors.