Member Info for Phimx

Koigg: You posted

" The reason why I am successful is because I don't waste my energy wasting my time trying to win an argument with some stranger on a chat board"

Presumably then, you waste your energy posting about the shares you are going to buy?

This is a discussion board don't be to too surprised when you're engaged in discussion. No need to reply if you are short of energy.

Koigg: You posted

" Sphinx, I am not going to tell you my purchases as I do not prove myself to anybody. However, please look for my multiple sells of 1000001 million shares.

But recently you posted the following

" I didn't get my second order filled but tomorrow I am going to double it tomorrow."

If you don't want to prove yourself then don't tell people what you are claiming to do!

Now you've told everyone you're going to sell but it is just like a Gardin statement, it could be this Monday or in 10 years time, a bit of a waste of words all in all.

Koigg"

" 1000001 million" that's an awful lot of shares, I'm assuming you mean trades of 1000001 shares.

But surely you won't be selling those for some time in the future, so you can profit?

Scottwins: You posted

" This is a strange title of a thread for you to start Phimx, because it’s you that has to be corrected nearly every post you make."

Really ? There is no doubt when asked to explain or answer any remarks the rampers make they very very rarely reply with anything sensible. Normally it's deadly silence, if they actually put pen to paper it will most likely be to insult. Finally if it neither it will be a cut and paste of Gardin's vague and ambiguous information.

MrHanji:

RNS 2 April

" The Company plans to follow up with a number of interested parties and it is expected to sign new NDAs in the coming weeks"

OK so they managed 1 NDA out of " a number of interested parties ..."

Of course it's another one of those vague statements, investors can insert their own interpretation on what a number is, anything from 1 to 50 give or take.

MrHanji: You posted

"I can only think the sentiment is we may get another update saying there were issues in testing on asic architecture of the leading asic manufacturer ..".

But from the RNS 2 April we have

" The Company plans to follow up with a number of interested parties and it is expected to sign new NDAs in the coming weeks which will lead to data sharing and third-party systems testing."

So those NDAs have still to be announced so very unlikely testing has even started

Lamps56:

That was a mistake, Im so used to adding that to INSP and QBT shares.

MrHanji: You posted

"I can only think the sentiment is we may get another update saying there were issues in testing on asic architecture of the leading asic manufacturer .."

So those NDAs have still to be announced so very unlikely testing has even started.

But from the RNS 2 April we have

" The Company plans to follow up with a number of interested parties and it is expected to sign new NDAs in the coming weeks which will lead to data sharing and third-party systems testing."

Scottwins:

Options are given to company personnel but also PUT and CALL options can be traded as another form of gambling devised by the slick city boys.

As the QBT option holders have discovered its a cheap way of paying you nothing! Presumably they will be reissued but then are these 'talented' people interested in working for options again ?

Scottwins:

Your post is slightly hashed!

You are given an option to buy a share at 5p, I.e. it is your choice when you wish to buy that share and hand over your 5p. The options do expire and then you lose your opportunity to buy.

The basis of the options is the expectation the share price will rise because of your hard work and brilliance in making a product for the company!

The company thrives and the share prices goes to 20p you then exercise your right to buy at 5p, you hand a shiny 5p coin to the company and they give you one new share. You sell for 20p, everyone is very happy.

The other side is - QBT give you 10,000,000 options and ....

Scottwins: You posted

"Buying some or all of those shares back at 3.4p would certainly send a strong signal to the market.

But so dies having options at 5p and 10p"

It could indicate where the SP is expected to go. QBT have issued share options in the past which have expired, they never reached their strike price. At present anyone with options of 5p could buy the shares they want for 0.7p.

Of course they may not have funds available today but at some time before the options expire, in the future, they could buy at 5p. So the options are not totally worthless now but it's not looking good!

Previously options issued by QBT have expired and been reissued, so they were a very poor indicator of share price direction.

This seems to be on the move up, I've just added.

Mickdj: You posted

" Koolkat

The NDA signing is important market sensitive data and the law states that the market must be informed. The market was informed of the NDA by RNS on the 8 April 2025

Not in january as you claim

Your comments are false and misleading"

BUT HAVE YOU REPORTED KOOLKAT ???

Mickydj: You posted

“Phimx, your post starts with the sentence

The patent application would seem to be having objections from a third party claiming they are not novel

Those are your words, and the words “Not Novel” in terms of a third part observation entry, suggests that the thing in question is familiar, common, or ordinary, even lacking originality.

The third party observation that you have posted is clearly written with a scope to address “Lack of clarity.

The term that you Phimx are using, imply the patent will not stand as it is not new or original, whereas the actual third party observation depicts the third party relying on an AI transcript tool to bring into the foreground **Lack of clarity** “

First of all Mickeydj my post contained an error with the first link which should have pointed the reader to the list of documents of EP4342127. The link being

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP22793447&lng=en&tab=doclist

There the reader will find the third party objections

I’m not sure what your sentence about my use of “not Novel” is meant to be convey. To be clear I’m not suggesting I am 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗹𝘆 that my use of

the term is meant to mean not new, was previously known, lacking originality, has been used before, etc. Is that Clear ?

You then go on to discuss 𝗼𝗻𝗲 of the objections, the use of the AI transcript. Again I’m not sure about the meaning of your “Lack of clarity” statements.

The objectors use of the AI transcript is to highlight that Gardin’s ASIC expert had told Gardin that the Synthesiser software would perform the optimisations automatically i.e. that optimisation was known and therefore “not novel” Therefore Gardin was going to patent something which was commonplace. It has nothing to do with language, cultural difference or lack of clarity.

The original objections submitted are in relation to the patent application being prior work, as 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗮𝗶𝗸’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀; in fact he states in the last paragraph of Chapter 8

“it was decide to make all this information 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 with the vision of the betterment of the Bitcoin community and it is hoped that these findings will be a stepping stone to faster and more efficient Bitcoin mining”

Mickeydj:

Tell everyone what the false and misleading information is so readers can make their decision and not be dictated to by your interpretations

Previous message could have been formatted better.

It looks like the patent applications are subject to some very credible objections. Gardin should come clean about these problems.

Note Gardin's expert has stated the Synthesis tool would have inserted the optimisation automatically which lends credibility to my assertion that these optimisations well understood in the mining and ASIC community

The Patent applications would seem to be having objections from a third party claiming they are not novel

see: https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=MAC1NEL9X86K236&number=EP22793447&lng=en&npl=false

******EVERTHING BELOW HERE IS FROM THE THIRD DOCUMENT IN THE LIST FROM THE LINK******

"Third Party Observations

REF: EP4342127 May also include WO2025012631

The CEO of the company listed as the applicant, QUANTUM BLOCKCHAIN TECH PLC, gave a presentation at NEMS25 in January this year, https://x.com/QBTOfficial256/status/1886346092071031211? t=PsOFk_RGMija1rJOvqzt0Q&mx=2

https://pretalx.com/nems25/talk/9FC9YU/

The audio of that presentation is available here,

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nems25-reality-or-science-fiction-a-future-of/ id1646515985?i=1000699494440

Using an Al transcription tool to covert to text results in the following excerpt spoken by theCEO, Francesco Gardin,

'We engaged Raoul Naik, and maybe some of you have heard of him. He is the one that in 02/2012, managed to reduce the 64 steps of compression in the Schall algorithm to 60. So at the 60 step, it could tell whether it will generate a winning ash or not. So we took him on board and say, okay, Now you have freedom to do whatever you want, to improve and to see whether your work, is he he also mastered from UCL, which is one of the top university in the world, if you can improve it. And say, okay.

Fine. And we filed two patents to to improve it. Problem with improvements of from the logical improvement algorithm to a hardware which runs it is that an improvement on paper doesn't necessarily correspond to an improvement on hardware. 𝗦𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝗣𝗚𝗔 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗦𝗜𝗖 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗸𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗼𝗸𝗮𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝘁

𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆. But anyway, we filed two patents and we they are ready there if we want to

design a chip.

Raoul Naik is listed as the inventor and in the above excerpt Francesco Gardin states that the

enhancements as detailed in the two patent applications filed by the company would have

been done automatically by the synthesis tools as advised by the companies FPGA/ASIC

designer but they filed the patents anyway.

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼-𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲. "

Scottwins: Time will tell if the Bitcoin industry is interested, so far so bad!!!

Scotwins: I can disagree

Clearly what was posted was with reference to the latest RNS

" Scotwins: You posted

" The industry is interested, the large ASIC chip manufacturer for a start, Its in the RNS."

Where does it say that in the RNS ???

If you are going to refer to other RNS in the past identify them.

Second point where in the RNS you are trying to reference does it say LARGE. If you are using QBT statements to make a point stick to what they actually say

Scotwins: You posted

" The industry is interested, the large ASIC chip manufacturer for a start, Its in the RNS."

Where does it say that in the RNS ???