Member Info for Phimx

Koolkat: You post

" QBT saying it may need funding does not magically mean an unannounced placing has already happened"

I think QBTs placings, and AIM placings in general, are unannounced. You have to guarantee the lender a profit before he loans out serious money to failing companies. Simply ask UKOG or VAL shareholders. The poor shareholder rarely wins!!

Koolkat: You post

" ... like you, Phimx, UserSteve and all your multi ID's "

Surely you were also one of those multi IDs, until very recently calling this company out.

On 18th March. Just a short while ago. You posted

" Like many on here including that Chip fella, modern financial anxiety drives people to take risks they cannot afford to take hoping to reach high financial goals, operating under the "fluke mentality" that they are the protagonist who won't be the one losing money. I get it, but life isn't that easy.

Unfortunately, for them as many before, they'll ultimately lose money with this company IMO. It's jackpot mentality, and a misunderstanding of risk-reward ratios, often ignoring that high risk means a higher chance of losing everything"

I think those prophetic words give us a clue as to your frantic posting here !

Market Makers are just like your typical small bookmakers, they play the percentages I.e they don't take big risks. For example, a punter walks in and slaps down £10,000 on a 20-1 shot, it would be tempting to take the risk and accept the punters wager as is. They don't, they lay the bet off to other bookies and they all take a slice of the action.

From AI:

Yes, market makers (MMs) frequently "lay off" or transfer risk by selling shares to other market makers or liquidity providers. They do not keep massive, unbalanced positions; instead, they constantly manage inventory, hedge positions, and trade with each other to manage risk, especially when one MM is in a long-gamma position.

Do intra MM trades appear as normal trades ?

Yes, intra-market maker trades (trades between market makers or internal hedging) generally appear as normal trades on public tapes and time-and-sales data.

Since the share price is moving little it is almost certain these large trades are movements between MMs

My and AI opinion !!

Jimbob75: You post

" There is of course the reality that to buy someone has to sell and vice versa"

Reality is you maybe correct but the Market makers are the middle men, a sell may not have an immediate buyer nor a buyer a seller. The market maker is facilitating the trades on small share dealings.

Koolkat: You post

" Phimx, as per usual, you've taken a few cautious words like ‘could’ and ‘if’ and built a full conspiracy out of them. That’s not analysis, that’s narrative theatre, as I have stated to you before."

You sound more like Mickydj every day.

Conspiracy !

I was highlighting your lack of facts, which you seem so keen for others to use. You, on the other hand, can post any post anything devoid of fact. Also who said it was supposed to be analysis, it is my version of the story based my inference. Facts are in very short supply here, thanks to Mr. NDA!

Mrhanji: You post

" Also they maybe giving consideration to using more of the options (total 83 million) alot has changed since the last time they issued the options"

Indeed, anyone granted options years ago has seen the opportunity to make any money disappear over the years.

What has changed ? Investors still waiting for deals and a commercial product. I won't count SaaS, that appeared to have be a passing whimsy of Gardin, it certainly didn't make any revenue for anyone, except ...

I think you have been infected with the fantasy virus also, it rages on LSE !!

Koolkat: You post

" 08:47

Morning, QBT is not ending, because of BlocKeeper, as some might say LOL. BlocKeeper is to be a separate adjacent venture, and it could benefit QBT shareholders, if QBT retains meaningful upside, which in my opinion, at this moment, I believe it will."

Not many facts there, is there?

"It could benefit" looking forward to that optimistic claim !

"QBT is not ending " You post that based upon what ?

" a seperate adjacent venture" You post that based upon what ?

"If QBT .." Ahh the old if word "

" Your opinion ..." I guess your opinion is based upon the 5 years of statements by Gardin that failed to become reality. Projections he made which were based upon his dreams rather than solid commercial practicalities and planning.

In my opinion, he and no other management team member attended NEMS2026 in Nashville therefore he did not have many many meetings. The delivery of the rig and MDK to Oragon was intended to suggest Bynoe was actively involved. Why not just state Bynoe was performing pre-delivery checks. The delivery of the 'box' to Milan university was a belated stunt to counter the claims he did not attend Nashville. "Painting" the box black does not disguise the box or the identifying text originally shown in the first release. What significance is the rig when they are testing, for speed, the hashing board with a QBT server? Why is the second rig being held in Oragon when side by side comparisons in Milan is what is required to verify the Oracle creates an advantage ? How long would it take for the Oracle to produce more share hashes, because a single miner ain't going to produce a Bitcoin hash in Gardin's remaining life time ?

My opinion!

Usersteve:

Without looking at actual figures, it it not the case that the issue of extra shares has caused percentages to be reduced ?

I note Gardin's percentage had dropped but there has been no notification of him having sold shares.

Llewely:

I think this is another one of your mistakes. I think you're a bit west on the distribution curve!

Apologies will be accepted when you sober up.

Llewelyn: You post

" Strange of you to buy shares in QBT then Phimx, given those odds"

What drivel is this you post, shares in this deluded fantasy ... never

Hexam: You post

“I think that's incorrect. Difficulty increases not because of mining success but by the communities total hash rate.”

Not so. It is dictated directly by the number of blocks mined in each 2 week window (though the length of that window shortens when blocks are mined more quickly than the expected one every 10 minutes).

I think we are both correct, there is no disagreement, but I could have been slightly more explicit. My phrase " ..communities total hash rate" implied blocks will naturally be mined faster, due to the faster rate, and of course if that happens the difficulty is increased.

In practise success is always achieved for every block ( theoretically it may not happen)

It would seem the introduction of faster ASICs and eventually quantum computing will only reduce the number of players in the field. I suspect it is already better odds to buy lottery tickets than mine Bitcoin with a mediocre rig.

Hexam: You post

" I think that’s a relatively easy one to answer. If there is any widespread improvement to improve mining the difficulty is simply adjusted to negate that improvement so any incremental improvement only lasts two weeks at most."

I think that's incorrect. Difficulty increases not because of mining success but by the communities total hash rate.

I'll argue that if a successful miner joins then it is possible less successful miners drop out of the game and the difficulty could remain constant.

The frantic pumping of this dubious and vague project suggests that Gardin is attempting to raise more money after the recent poor placing. He has to demonstrate he can still generate investor interest to give the lender some assurance their money can make them money.

As can be seen from the views stats of his various interviews, interest is not great!

Time to put meat on the bone Gardin !

My particular favourite bit of nonsense from this PRN is:

"Even incremental improvements in solving proof-of-work problems could translate into short-term material economic benefits in Bitcoin mining."

Isn't this exactly what Methods A, B, Ch and Cs are supposedly already achieving or exceeding ?

Why does he write 'could' instead of 'will' and why 'short term material economic benefits' ???

Obelix:

Do you believe the fantasy Gardin pumps out. The team is probably a single student and supervisor preparing a report on the state of play in Quantum Computing, this allows Gardin to puff up the project. You are the target Obelisk, the investor that believes he's going to make his millions in this share.

Never have so many PRN words been written that say absolutely nothing!

Koolkat:

There has to be some matyrs in this world of liars, thieves and fraudsters. Some people sacrifice their time money and effort to help others without requiring anything in return. It used to be in the UK there were many groups and volunteers but alas greed has become the most significant trait of many. Not least our politicians, royalty and institutions.

I'll do my little bit and when the time comes i'll tell them where to put their MBE.

Koolkat: You post

"If the testing comes back positive, QBT will clinch a commercial deal."

Gardin never posts anything negatives, those fade gently away never to be mentioned again.

I note your use of that IF word, I guess it gives away your real expectations, a quick generous spike then out like a shot.

Koolkat: You post

" That's what I think anyway."

Today, possibly not tomorrow eh

Inforapennyortwo: You post

" Smash and grab on share price imho"

Go for it !

What the patent process highlights is QBT's technology is not as earth shaking as Gardin wants you to believe. There are too many similarities within existing ASIC technology, many of which are proprietary and therefore hidden from view.

Gardin has made different claims for the efficiency of his methods but has not given sensible and scientific data. Probably the only reference to measure against is the FIPS - 180-2 Algorithm or you could provide figures by reference to another known and competitive miner under the same conditions. Simply applying a Method to various ASICs will produce different results. To assume they are all using brute force is an assumption made by Gardin, he cannot know what optimisations are in use in the latest miners. This stretched out development work suggests the industry isn't desperately seeking QBT as a partner.

Any results from testing will be vague and mean little.

Gardin has attended several of these shows in the US but rather than presenting his wonderous technology to the world's Bitcoin industry, reaching the ear of every Bitcoin miner, he has kept to the shadows. Passing a dark corner of the hall a figure in a dark suit whispers " Psst, what to see a great mining demonstration, in my room? "