Are you going to answer my questions, or are you just mad that I am asking them?

So what are they saying on Telegram? Care to enlighten me?

I follow this thread only because of the delicious popcorn.

https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balances

Some key points: 99.2% (!!) of the tokens remain unsold, so it is clear that the ICO has failed big time. And it's been days since the ICO ended, yet there is zero comment from the q1n team here in the forum, on twitter, or on any other channel.

What are they hiding?

Those of you who have invested should push hard to get your questions answered, as they are clearly being ignored here.

No, it didn't. Did you watch the video? He mentioned merely "quantum encryption", is that what you call "answered a lot of questions and give a lot of information about the project"? Come on.

Was that a question?

Yes https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balances

The ICO has been online for four weeks out of five. In those four weeks, they have reached only 0.7% of their goal. Zero point seven percent.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think the data speaks for itself.

It's very easy to check. The q1s tokens are so-called ERC20 tokens, i.e. simple Ethereum tokens that are used by basically every ICO in existence.

ERC20 tokens, like all Ethereum contracts, are public as they are stored in the blockchain. One way to check this public information is to use a site like etherscan: https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balances

In the above link, I show the token holders of the q1s contract. On rank 1 you see that 99.2756% of all tokens are held by a single holder, i.e. quantum1net. This means that only 0.7% of the tokens have been sold.

If you click the "token transfers" tab on etherscan you can see who has bought q1s tokens, when they bought, and how much they have. We're down to about 1-2 transactions per day now, and there is almost zero volume of tokens being sold. In the past 24 hours, less than 250 q1s tokens were sold which is about €750.

All of this information is public and you can verify it yourself, don't take my word for it.

Also note that the q1n team has gone completely silent. They no longer post updates in this bitcointalk thread, questions on reddit go unanswered, their twitter account is just posting links that have nothing to do with q1n. Why are they silent? Why won't they answer questions? I know the answer, but you'll have to think about that yourself.

Wrong. Q1n has never clarified their tech, their white and yellow papers are internally inconsistent, and the followup posts do not even try to respond to the questions raised by the crypto community.

Check the status of the ICO: https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balances

Only 0.7% of the tokens have been sold even though the ICO has been going on for weeks. I'd be surprised if there will be a release party...

At the rate the ICO is going, i'd guess you'll need to buy 29783701 q1s tokens for the party to happen. 

Only 180454 tokens sold so far: https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balances

That's approximately 180.454 ETH, plus or minus 20%.

Converted to EUR, we get €122709. That is 0.4% of the hard cap, and the token sale is almost over  

Edit: This is far from even covering the promised bounty payout of 500 000 USD!

Sorry to break your bubble, but the quantum1net ICO will never deliver, the tech won't work.

False. Kikteno et al. already proposed a quantum crypto blockchain scheme in May 2017: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09258 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608041/first-quantum-secured-blockchain-technology-tested-in-moscow/

Hey there. Yes, I have detailed a number of technical issues with the ICO. I advise anyone from investing. Quantum1net has declined to respond to the criticism and are threatening to sue anybody who complains.

More info: https://twitter.com/Jogenfors/status/957027125801947138

Yes.

Wrong. I have asked quantum1net several times about technical information. I have received none. I have not refused to look at it. I have refused to sign an NDA. There is an important difference.

I have read the paper, and it (badly) describes a quantum random number generator. I happen to have an almost exact same setup in my own lab (can show pics if you want), and it has nothing to do with protecting against quantum computers and Shor's algorithm. Check my twitter thread for more details: https://twitter.com/Jogenfors/status/956627886496272384

Alright, the quantum1net team has not responded to my comments here or via e-mail. Therefore I will now publicly call them out on their [REDACTED]. The technology described in their papers is useless, and does not solve the problem they say it solves.

I am currently starting a thread on this on twitter: https://twitter.com/Jogenfors/status/956627886496272384 and will keep adding info there.

If you are thinking about buying into quantum1net, think again. I have read the papers and they are only intended to look cool for the non-technical reader. All fancy equations about quantum mechanics and entanglement is just smoke and mirrors.

But why should you listen to me and not the quantum1net team? Well, I happen to have a PhD in quantum technology and my thesis discussed how to combine the blockchain with quantum mechanics. In my research I break quantum cryptography algorithms for a living.

//Jonathan Jogenfors

(Message partially redacted on Jan 30th)

Alright, I have technical objections to quantum1net.

Primarily, how is your proposal quantum-safe? The only thing talked about in the papers is a quantum random number generator, something that has been done for years. But random numbers does not give a quantum safe cryptosystem, you need a quantum-safe algorithm in order to protect against quantum computers.

In the proposal you try to show that your random numbers are "better" than a classical RNG/PRNG, however you do not even show the results from a randomness test battery like Diehard/Dieharder.

In fact, quantum random number generators are often worse than a PRNG, as shown by a student of mine. I would be happy to link that research paper, but in the meantime, I'd first like to see technical arguments that substantiate your claims.