Member Info for Phimx

Scottwins: You posted

" You do realise that the other directors have to sign off on these RNS don’t you?

Do you think they would agree to these RNS as they would be implicated if it were untrue"

Implicated in a poor project?

So what !

Scottwins: You post

" Phimx, again you refuse to answer, QBT have shown their irrefutable evidence to miners and ASIC manufacturers and now they are in talks with these companies, so it looks very much like that irrefutable evidence has these companies hooked"

No no no the only evidence is Gardin has made those statements, you nor I don't know if they are correct or not.

When a deal is made, with a major, as stated then we can say those statements were correct.

Since QBT carried lots of testing why did that not show method C gives a mathematical advantage of 43% in hashing rate? Not 30% as Gardin has claimed a few times in RNS, this was no slip of the pen. Only Hexam spotted the flaw in the simple maths and logic.

I believe that SHA256 can be improved upon when considering it for a single application i.e. hashing for Bitcoin. But and it's a big but the major players have been optimising the SHA for years and QBT have little to offer. I believe Gardin was naive in believing he could revolutionise the algorithm. The evidence is he new little about ASICs, he dreamt of having a 5 nm hasher but didn't even understand the costs never mind the technology.

He applied for a patent using Naik's work but has failed because it was obvious, due to the work being published in 2013, it was prior art. He must have known that but either was oblivious to it or deliberately went ahead to make the project look credible. Why did Naik not stay on board this fantastic golden band wagon?

Too many red flags to be putting piles of money into

Scottwins:

We don't know they have gained anyone's trust, that has yet to be verified by an actua ldeal with a major.

Based upon Gardin's past statements the probability is there will be no deal.

You and everyone invested are throwing the dice on the word of one man. As Usersteve has highlighted the statements made leave room for interpretation of meaning.

There is no meaningful descriptions of testing or performance. The goalpost change often, there is no clarity or professional rigour. From the outset this looked like a very poor project and it flies in the face of scepticism from Bitcoin professionals.

Time will tell.

Scottwins:

Just the answer I expected. Y ou claim I make stuff up so is this little mathematical reasoning made up. I think you cannot refute the logic here. Every one on this board can see logically and mathematically throwing away 30% allows another 43% more hashes compared to an equivalent miner with no method C.

This not made up, it is irrefutable and you have no answer for it. You simply cannot refute it.

Perhaps the reason is there has been no irrefutable evidence, because even if they made a simple silly error in calculation the exhaustive testing they have said they've carried out would show up the 43%

Dingbat: You posted

" Anything to reinforce your hatred this guy sounds really genuine if that’s the sort of comment he makes kept sniffing his fingers !..Hummm I really believe he went to the AGM.!!"

Please try and be more precise with you replies, I'm not sure if you are referring:

Scottwins

Gardin

Somepikey

and I assume your reply is meant to address my post ?

Somepikey:

The sum total of the QBT AGM is

"Gardin kept smelling his fingers"

I'm lost for words but surely someone has a numerous quip?

Mickeydj

If you get my posts deleted what are people going to read?

Ramping fantasia ?

Discarding 30% of the inputs to the SHA256 engines gives a 43% throughput increase.

𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝟯𝟬% 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻

Come on Scottwins let's be having your refutation!

Intothedeep:

I guess Gardin isn't answering questions either.

Far better asking Gardin why, when you present method C with 143 inputs to SHA25, then throw 30% away the hashing rate only increases by 30%

Baserite: You wrote

" it is my understanding that potential action against this salacious unbalanced Ip hub is being considered."

Bluff and bombast, bring it on.

Obelisk: You posted

" People who will attend can have a little bit more information (directly from FG) than us here who are waiting for the positive news."

Are you suggesting AGM attendees will receive information to their advantage, that's insider information !

AWL007:

My thoughts.

There will be no deal announced, Gardin will have to pivot, perhaps QBT to become a miner, he'll need money, nothing will change until placing completed in 4 to 5 weeks.

You did ask !

Oneforthemoney: You posted

" So your name is Steve is it? Well who knew"

No his name is Dingbat and he's quite proud he's on Usersteve's list!

Scottwins: You posted

" So its the UserPhimx show yet again trying to dissuade anyone from in investing in QBT, whats your game?"

Trying to dissuade anyone investing in a poor investment and losing their money.

Jimmy62: You posted

" Having read all the negative dross from certain posters I was beginning to doubt my investment. "

You may vave noticed that all the dross cannot be refuted by the people promoting this share. Are you happy that Gardin has failed many times to live up to his targets. His failure to provide any sensible technical performance figures, his continual change of direction etc. I can't really be bothered to repeat what has been reported here. If you wish to ignore common sense and the evidence in plain sight go ahead fill your boots. Beware though, information has been provided by by both sides it's up to you to choose..

Mickeydj: You posted

"The link contains information that cannot be corroborated, and thus has no place on an financial forum"

𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼

Perhaps a bit like the information Gardin has posted the last few years

Mickeydj:

The many infringements 𝗬𝗢𝗨 say I've made. I'm happy to defend what I've posted against your self-appointed censorship role.

What do you hope to achieve? Do you think you are going to uncover some deep conspiracy against QBT. I'll bet my money the conspiracies are all in your head. Roll on the court case.

Mickeydj:

You say I break the rules but LSE think differently.

Contribute something to the discussion other than make believe rules.