Member Info for Phimx

Mickeydj:

This isn't the BBC or British press, since when does information have to be corroborated. Information that isn't verified loses credibility and readers can make up their own minds, without your interference to heed it or not.interference.

I like to think for myself!

This makes interesting reading, read both pages.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5489252.0

Hexam:

That's a good answer.

Hexam: You posted

" It doesn't but what I think they are saying is that although you are using the same electricity doing the same number of hashes you have discarded 30% that never had a chance of being the winning one so you've narrowed the search and have 30% (actually it would be 43%) more chance of being successful with the same electricity cost .

That's why I said hashes per electricity has increased hence your 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 cost has reduced but at the end of the month you electric bill is the same.

It look like there is only poster prepared to discuss possibly the most important feature of Method C and the other methods.

You are all gambling on this energy saving advantage but don't same able to support it and Gardin

.Mickeydj:

Why not answer the question instead of trying to have it removed.

I guess you realise there is no 30% saving to be had, are you Gardin ?

Awl007: You posted

" Phimx. I was under the impression that it would discard approximately 30% that the oracle deemed unworthy of hashing."

I agree but then what? Hashers work non-stop until the winning hash is found. Ask yourself at what point does the method c hasher stop ?

From QBT Web site

" Unlike current standard BTC mining approach, based on a search strategy, where the mining rig runs as many Tera hashes per second as possible, during the circa 10 minutes allowance for each block, with no special criteria on which hashes to process first"

There is no fixed or limited inputs to be hashed, you hash till you drop or until the winning hash is transmitted. Obviously if you wished to limit your system to say 500 million inputs you could, I guess if you want to limit your electric bill but you then limit your odds of winning.

Can anyone tell me how Method C achieves a 30% energy saving?

A method C hasher will very rarely find a winning hash. For any block it will hash as fast as it can, if not deliberately throttled. While it may get through more hashes than the non-method c hasher it will use exactly the same physical amount of electricity - The electric bill will be the same ?

Electricity per hash will reduce but not your bill!

Discuss !

Maidit: You posted

" Morning all, hope everyone invested is chilled, Massive news is on it's way IMO, I won't say how I know,"

You do provide some laughs with your posts.

Your investment philosophy is truly special.

Usersteve:

I've glanced through it, for example the highest paid director was paid 88,000 in the RNS account. I had assumed it was Gardin but this information shows it to be Trafeli, he received a special payment

Interesting !

I've just been reading the annual report on the Web site, it provides more detailed information than the financial report from the associated RNS.

Usersteve:

I think the following excerpt from the Web site gives the best description you'll get for Method B

" Unlike current standard BTC mining approach, based on a search, where the mining rig runs as many Tera hashes per second as possible, during the circa 10 minutes allowance for each block, with no special criteria on which hashes to process first, also described as brute force, or blind search, 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.

Method B performs an informed search using the degree of freedom made available different header’s parametersthereby selects portions of the search space to be explored by SHA-256. This approach avoids processing a large number of hashes, obtaining the target result, u.e. the a winning hash, in less time."

Thus my comment that Methods A and B point to a rought location where hashing could start from. Once started Method C could then be used to sift through the reduced inputs to further reject losers.

But since Gardin cannot produce any straightforward figures 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 then I don't believe a word of his interviews or RNS

Awl007:

My thoughts are, both method A and B point at an approximate slice of the total input range therefore you don't hash the entire input possibilities. Method C has no idea where to start but it is able to identify definite losers and therefore hash more inputs. So an application of Method B say followed by Method C would be feasible.

Assuming any of it does what Gardin claims.

Maidit: You posted

" ...that's a huge statement on camera in front of the whole world ?"

I remember John Gunn claiming in an interview the In-spirit Charger boiler was ready to go out into the market, that was 2016.

Its still not been seen to this day!

Maidit:

Look more like sells to me, they are in a hurry to get the placing finished so Gardin can announce a new wonderful story.

Example using a site to produce a SHA-256 hash, the software resides on the server, you the client don't have a clue how that software performs the hash.

Scottwins:

How about using a Web page ?

Scottwins:

The very point of the SaaS was that clients did not require QBT software on their computers. The SaaS protected QBT's proprietary methods/code.

" The need to adapt both Methods to a client-server architecture emerged from discussions with potential BTC mining clients/partners and their request for QBT source code to be installed on their mining rigs to be inspected for security and other technical reasons. QBT, however, is not prepared to share the source code of its Methods with any third party. The Company has therefore made its Methods available in the form of a SaaS platform to enable the core of the Methods to be installed on a QBT protected server and accessed by potential BTC mining clients and partners to allow them to undertake evaluation of the Methods and this was the substance of yesterday’s X announcement."

Scottwins:

So did the SaaS ever work ? If it did why is it necessary to update after market boards now

Scottwins"

The remarks you make are in relation to updates to after market PCBs and not methods A and B released as a SaaS.

From 19 June RNS

" The Company's technical team believes that uploading QBT's modified firmware and software to aftermarket control boards would be a seamless upgrade, similar to what is normally and routinely performed by the provider of such aftermarket boards when updating their current versions of their software and firmware.

The Board believes this commercial direction will allow the immediate release and sale of Methods A and B, while a live connection to QBT's servers running QBT's AI learning models is anticipated to guarantee control of the use of the Methods by the customers."

My point was methods A and B have been available for 2 years as 𝗦𝗮𝗮𝗦