 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Thanks for the merit tick. I'm feeling fuzzy and warm. This cropped up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LepnkruI4ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LepnkruI4o&t=29sAnd turns out that it's working perfectly so now the fan is turning it's now connected to a computer with a USB cable adapter and on the terminal with CG Miner Is it possible that that means QBT wasted the last whatever time trying to get CGMiner to work with their rubbish but that was the wrong choice from the outset so having failed to get it to work and rather than sticking their hands up for their stupids they slagged off CK and the CGMiner community but now they still have to use CGMiner? If so disgusting behaviour but priceless. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the added insight. You can take a guess that my lips were moving when I read through the link provided and your explanation and thoughts.
Just to be annoying and try to break this out for myself the first problem is that Bitmain keep rolling out new chips and no doubt keep changing the interface along with the architecture to keep everyone else on the back foot. I would not be surprised if that includes some sort of jiggery pokery within the controller firmware that might encrypt those communications and then they lock down their controller firmware to make things even harder. Everyone gets to suffer when they do this, as has QBT, because they have to reverse engineer that interface. Something Kano did with SideHack.
Base on the words from Kano, waves, and information elsewhere my simple scenario would be that the ASIC, containing a number of bitcoin specific hashing cores, is first loaded with the fixed numbers and is then given a Merkle Root and rolls the nonces through the full 32 bit range. There is a mention elsewhere that the BM1366 can roll something else other than the nonce but I'll stick with that. Depending on the number of cores then the roll will be offset to spread the workload across the cores in the ASIC. Things might be more complex in as much as you might go further and split the roll across multiple ASICs.
It kind of puts me in mind of the previous work on scheduling done by CK and how that might apply in this scenario as well as in the case of pool mining software. I've always thought that there must be some mechanism whereby the work has to be scheduled across the architecture, including pool, so that resources are not wasted by duplicating work. If that is kind of right then the network must be designed to optimise such scheduling and QBT don't get to moan about it. I might like to see some enhancements to a particular piece of FOSS. Just because I might think they could be a good idea I don't get to moan about others doing it wrong especially when I would not have a clue how to do it myself.
Let's take a leap of faith and accept that QBT's AI waffle is capable of spotting patterns in SHA256. Given the current crop of ASICs are designed to roll the nonce for themselves all QBT can do is roll and schedule the Merkel Route restricting the scheduling across cores or rigs or the network to the ranges their AI waffle thinks will have a higher likelihood of producing the right, an acceptable answer. This, according to my simplified version of things, is what the network is designed to do so they should just shut up and get on with it like everyone else does. There are no issues about the speed or efficiencies of such things that they get to moan about even if they think they can do it better.
There are no conceptual barriers to them proving their stuff works other than the possibility it does not work and they don't want proof it doesn't or it is a big fat nonexistant nothing being used to extract investment from mugs. All they can really bleat about, as they have done recently, is that they do not have the resources required to run their rubbish at a scale that will give a statistically significant level of proof. All the other moaning is just pants.
|
|
|
|
So they're using one of the most under-powered miners as a test bed? Sorry about missing out the most excellent ROFL but as another thought. Whilst QBT spend all of their time achieving nothing and think it's valid to blame world plus dog for their fail the latest RNS also appears to reveal why they are in permanent fail mode and the reason why no amount of trying other people's stuff only to slag them off when it doesn't work is kind of hidden in plain sight. These limitations are mainly due to the speed and power consumption inefficiencies created by the designers, which impact the ability to use any arbitrary input to SHA-256. Of course I may be wrong but QBT's AI superwhizz rubbish appears to rely on being able to stuff the arbitrary numbers they want into available ASICs and available ASICs won't let them do that. The mention of speed and power consumption inefficiencies is just an attempt by the grifters to try and hide the real problem. They can't get their numbers into the ASICs so they are permanently f*kd. |
|
|
|
Published via the regulatory news service, https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/QBT/quantum-blockchain-technologies-plc/analysisand now uploaded to their website. https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/regulatory-newshttps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_15_August_24.pdfA decision has been taken, therefore, to migrate away from CGMiner to AxeOS (ESP-miner), a more recently developed and, in the Company’s opinion, a better designed public domain operating system software for Bitcoin mining devices. The Company has found that CGMiner, which is considered the leading operating system for Bitcoin mining, added elements of unpredictability to a number of processes, due mainly to the code being developed over the last 13 years by a large number of contributors, each adding a new elements to the mining software. Therefore, while CGMiner was initially used by QBT to achieve the porting of its Methods, its high-level of inefficiency has now been recognised and the change to ESP-miner has been implemented. Considering that QBT approached CK directly for assistance, https://x.com/ckpooldev/status/1773906971806298306and depending on how you feel you might consider their words to be libelous in that rather than just accepting that they are rubbish they are calling the reputation of CGMiner and that of CK and Kano into doubt. Bear in mind that you, I and many others are aware of the link between QBT and CK along with all the moaning they have done about CGMiner. Whilst CK suggested he did not wish to name them... After thinking long and hard about whether I should name them publicly, I decided not to based on how CSW was able to cause endless pain on his bogus claims on bitcoin despite being nothing more than a psychiatric case with almost limitless money at his disposal. He might consider contacting aimregulation@lseg.com who regulate the market QBT is listed on and asking them to get the company to publish a clarification or withdrawal along with an apology. Aim regulation will consider the request and treat it in confidence. Wonder what QBT is going to come up with in the next few months as an excuse when they make no progress using ESP-miner + their vaporware code? Perhaps OSMU should think carefully about the association with QBT before QBT fails with their kit and starts trying to destroy their reputation as well. |
|
|
|
QBT Slags off CGMiner.... again, https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/QBT/r-d-update/16619685QBT’s software engineers are continuing to attempt to successfully port the Methods to existing commercial ASIC-based mining hardware and software system, via CGMiner. This remains challenging due to the severe limitations of most current ASIC architectures for implementing SHA-256. These limitations are mainly due to the speed and power consumption inefficiencies created by the designers, which impact the ability to use any arbitrary input to SHA-256.
A decision has been taken, therefore, to migrate away from CGMiner to AxeOS (ESP-miner), a more recently developed and, in the Company’s opinion, a better designed public domain operating system software for Bitcoin mining devices. The Company has found that CGMiner, which is considered the leading operating system for Bitcoin mining, added elements of unpredictability to a number of processes, due mainly to the code being developed over the last 13 years by a large number of contributors, each adding a new elements to the mining software. Therefore, while CGMiner was initially used by QBT to achieve the porting of its Methods, its high-level of inefficiency has now been recognised and the change to ESP-miner has been implemented.
ESP-miner was created by Open Source Miners United (OSMU), of which QBT is a sponsor, and incorporates the essential firmware-like functionalities of the FPGA component, which is the second processor of the current mining rigs’ control boards that provides time communication with the hashing boards.
ESP-miner uses the same processor for both the operating system and the firmware-like functionalities: the ESP32-S3 Espressif MCU (micro controller unit).
The combination of ESP-miner and the new family of BM1366 ASIC is now QBT’s new real-time operational environment for porting and testing the three Methods in a real-time mining mode. Other hardware and software platforms from OSMU are currently being assessed. The new hope is OSMU, https://opensourceminers.org/ , who they are apparently sponsoring. I'm not sure the QBT, patent the everything ethos, is a good fit for OSMU and their Open Source ideal but, assuming they have made that choice, it is their choice to make. |
|
|
|
Comment from another place, The whole idea of a pool is that anyone can truck up, download their software and join the pool. Then generally you get your share of BTC mined based on contribution. So absoloutely no need for an NDA with the pool as you are mining completely anonymously. https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_March_24-_final.pdfIn addition to the above, the development of Method B, as an extension to CGminer, a standard operating system used by almost all commercial mining rigs, has been particularly complex, given the intricacies of more than 50,000 lines of open-source C-code developed by the CGminer community. The key issues have been addressed and the Company is performing intensive live mining tests 24/7 using ASIC-based Bitcoin mining devices connected to two large mining pools. My presumption was that they have been forced to test on pools because they have not managed to get their own firmware working and are using firmware provided by the people running the pool. Maybe the pools they are mining on have no idea that they are being used for testing. Presumably there will be terms and conditions precluding having your pool used for someone else's development purposes. I wonder how they would react if they were to find out? If QBT have not asked to toilet in their pools the owners might like to ask QBT not to do so info@quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk |
|
|
|
For my sins I only came here because I was abused by pseudo shrinks on another forum. https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=QBTWith said pseudo shrinks now trying to explain their losses by questioning the credibility of both Con and Kano. Now I understand that the people who get things done have no reason to engage with others who don't know how but since this thread is being referenced to elsewhere I thought I would drop back in and wave at the losers elsewhere. Whilst I think BitCoin and Crypto is on a road to fail I think it might be useful to give some credit to some of the posters on LSE, I am sure you can spot them, for accelerating their own demise. Comparatively speaking it, by a long way, is quite civilized in this particular neck of the woods. |
|
|
|
In terms of the patents, or at least this visible one, with my limited knowledge of such things the application and the inventor seem extremely credible. I just get the impression that they have been comprehensively failed by the company that took it on board. I kind of missed/discounted your possible challenge on the basis of prior published research because I did not think it might apply. As things stand under the PCT/EPO, https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP22793447&lng=en&tab=mainAnyone is able to submit a Third Party Observation and do so anonymously. There is a link at the top "Submit Observations". I have used that in the past to trash a different companies application prior to grant but you have to argue a reasonable case. I got a mention in the "Go Away" reply from the examiner suggesting that the applicants should pay careful attention to my submission before they tried it on again. The second application, that is as yet not visible, also appears to be a hardware/silicon solution. I could be wrong, it is hard to work out what the company thinks they are doing beyond making stuff up, but this new Method C is meant to be tied into that second silicon solution. Method C, like Method A and B, is supposedly AI based and I think they accept that getting a patent on an AI, made up, black box might be a bit hard. As a result it is probably better to claim that you have one and hang some numbers on it to entice mug punters rather than ask an independent third party to laugh at you. Elsewhere Con is getting a bit of flak from The Believers who generally go about projecting their own reason for fail on others. In part that is why I am here. In terms of ripping new arseholes (assholes) and statistics I am not by any means a statistician but I assume that QBT has one and would be able to explain why the testing of any of their fantasy might take a bit of time because... https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_network_hash_ratehttps://m.bitmain.com/product/detail?pid=00020231025110633223f8vE5pxQ06ABSo, assuming all rigs are T21, sold out, there are 640.5M/190 rigs on the go. Call it 3.4 Million. Collectively they, are forced to, solve one block every 10 minutes. So, statistically speaking, it takes each one 34 Million minutes to solve a block. That's about 64 years. QBT claims that Method B improves the chance of getting an answer by 2.6 so a QBT enhanced rig would take 25 years. QBT now claim that they are testing this on the live network. https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_March_24-_final.pdfI don't think *mining in a pool* qualifies as being truly live and, of course, QBT give no indications as to how many rigs they are using so based on the information they do give the minimum number required to qualify as true is... Two. Assuming one rig is enhanced and the other is not then they might mine a block in the next 25 years because one block is going to be statistically significant. My wet finger, and a rubbish Pascal Program wot I wrote kind of suggests that if they ran 2,000 rigs, 1,000 enhanced the other 1,000 not, they might get statistically significant results in about 2 months. Naturally the company gives us no idea as to what they are really doing or any of the statistics behind it other that it is intensive. I thought rigs were by definition a bit intensive unless you understand how the software that messes about with their core clocks and voltages can be adjusted works. And your footnote is that, to me, *mining in a pool* means you borrowed someone else's software and have to mine in their pool because your PHd Megabrains could not work out Git or read a documented program. Of course I don't, yet, know how to do that but I am not a MegaBrain trying to mug investors so Yah Boo. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply and the added information. I had suggested elsewhere that if QBT were having problems with CGMiner they might consider contacting one of the originators. I had also suggested that their moaning about Bitmain and the lack of documented information was a bit, more than, broken given the boards are accessed via a header and all you would have to do it hook up a breakout cable and probe them. I'm not all that but I do know a bit about electronics. OK. Tell me to go away if I am overstepping the mark here. I did ask Con via e-mail about QBT on the 16th March and he responded quite quickly to say that he had never heard of them and they were likely to be making claims they could not back up. I included a copy of the RNS published on the 13th, http://hTTps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/regulatory-newshttp://hTTps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_March_24-_final.pdfwhere QBT claim... In addition to the above, the development of Method B, as an extension to CGminer, a standard operating system used by almost all commercial mining rigs, has been particularly complex, given the intricacies of more than 50,000 lines of open-source C-code developed by the CGminer community. The key issues have been addressed and the Company is performing intensive live mining tests 24/7 using ASIC-based Bitcoin mining devices connected to two large mining pools. Then Con suggests on the 30th via Twitter that he has been contacted by a company that smells extremely like QBT and told them to get lost. Top Bloke. He has not replied to my later emails so until this happened I was leaving him alone but I did ask again and still got no reply. That's cool. My actions perhaps not so much. However I am left wondering about the timeline. Con, on the 16th, does not know about them. The company on the 13th say they have solved their problems. Con on the 30th says that a company that smells like them have asked for help sorting out the problems that QBT were having with CGMiner. Something does not add up, smells. I am due to have a lump removed under general anesthetic in the next couple of weeks and I would trust Con implicitly to put me under. If QBT were claiming to have invented some new fangled anesthetic I would invite them to go do one. You mention Kano as being the last person actively developing and supporting CGMiner. My Git skills are non-existent but I did, kind of, understand the last pull request. I may be wrong but that sort of thing would make me understand why supporting such projects can be a bit of a bind. Especially when a company of MegaBrains rocks up in your email telling you that your software is rubbish and asks you to fix it for them. Again, assuming I am not overstepping the mark and apologies for using you as a proxy, could you ask Kano if they have been approached by QBT? |
|
|
|
As an add on the subject of patent applications. The company announced filing the first on 30 Sep 2021 and the second on 24 Jul 2023, https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_ASIC_UltraBoost_Patent_-_Final.pdfhttps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT-_Patent_Application_-_July_23.pdfThey make it a bit difficult to view the actual progress of these applications, https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/patents-ipbut they are listed on the UKPTO website, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB2310704Unfortunately as a result of the way the patent system operates, details are not made public until 18 months after the filing date, in the case of the second it is not possible to see any information. It is possible in the the case of the first, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/DocumentsSome of you will recognise the words in the title as being similar to ASIC Boost as developed and open sourced by Timo Hanke, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/Documentsand that was one of the original objections made by the examiner against QBT's application. Subsequently QBT appear to have overcome this objection and other examples of prior art but the examiner introduced objections surrounding excluded material, in particular a 'computer program' and a 'business method', https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentabilityQBT failed to answer these objections in time even though they did request a two month extension. However in the meantime they had transferred the application to the PCT, Patent Cooperation Treaty, under the EPO, European Patent Office, https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP22793447&lng=en&tab=mainhttps://register.epo.org/application?number=EP22793447&lng=en&tab=doclistwhere it is presently under examination. EPO normally defers to UKPTO rulings on patentability but it is likely that QBT, having missed the deadline in the UK, will be able to argue their case. You can see something similar happening in anothe application, that moved through to grant, by Timo Hanke and was assigned variously to, TOP GALORE LIMITED, LITTLE DRAGON TECHNOLOGY LLC and possibly another, https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14864642&lng=en&tab=mainhttps://register.epo.org/application?tab=doclist&number=EP14864642&lng=enThat grant was subsequently challenged and revoked and the case is presently subject to appeal. I am uncertain but I am aware that their is an active group withing the field of BitCoin/BlockChain that seek to prevent such ownership of Intellectual Property in order to maintain a level playing field within the community. Whether they will take an interest in the application made by QBT remains to be seen. As to the application itself whilst I have little to no knowledge about SHA256 and its use within the BlockChain it does appear to have technical merit. At least at a level that the UKPTO was prepared to accept. As such it is possible, likely, that QBT will be able to argue their case for Grant under the PCT. QBT will not be sharing this. Aside from this desire to operate a closed shop I would suggest that the company has not exactly been open about their own progress. Whilst they announced the applications they did not announce that the first application was in trouble and most recently, https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_March_24-_final.pdfPatent Applications
•
•
The Company is making positive headway with its first two patent applications. A third patent application is being drafted for the proprietary quantum version of SHA-256.
The Company’s first patent application (ASIC UltraBoost) has now been filed with the European Patent Office, while the second patent application (ASIC EnhancedBoost) is going through a standard exchange of questions and answers with the UK Patent Office. A third patent application is being drafted for the proprietary quantum version of SHA-256 and will be submitted as soon as practical. YMMV on positive headway and "standard exchange of questions" most likely means that the second application has been subject to challenge. Again we will not see the nature of those communications until the case file is made public some time in December this year. |
|
|
|
Apologies for the late. Someone snaffled a copy of the FT article https://archive.ph/PR7L6I get the impression that the author, and possibly others, are also a bit cynical as well. |
|
|
|
Well. The claim, at least for what they call their AI solutions, is that SHA256, or the block generation has flaws that result in predictable patterns that they can use to increase the probability of finding the winning solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ehU3hDMFEMhttps://youtu.be/5ehU3hDMFEM?t=51This is not a hardware solution such as AsicBoost which as I understand things was open sourced by Timo Hanke and then modified without giving back by BitMain. The suggestion is that they have found an exploitable flaw and they will not be sharing it. |
|
|
|
|
Apologies for the boost.
No takers then?
This company, or at least their investors, want you to believe that they will be the salvation of Bitcoin and probably crypto in general when the halving arrives.
They also appear to want to lock you into using their technology.
Assuming their stuff works, which I doubt. Does this sound like a good thing?
|
|
|
|
Hi, Apologies if I am in the wrong place and possibly should not be here anyway. If you are interested then this will probably need a bit of research but I can attempt to answer any questions and point to online resources. For a start, https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/regulatory-newshttps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/patents-iphttps://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/products-serviceshttps://twitter.com/QBTOfficial256https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYNcH8Fv9wZ31ZOeQeAmhwQThe company makes various claims about its technology which can be quite hard to decipher if at all. The latest buzz from them is testing of something they call Method A and Method B, Method C is also in the pipeline. The most recent brick wall they have hit is porting Method A and Method B onto mining rigs. In particular the writing or modification of firmware in particular for BitMain rigs. Their most recent regulatory announcement, they are listed on the AIM market in the UK, is here, https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_RD_Update_March_24-_final.pdfwhich makes mention of CGminer, "In addition to the above, the development of Method B, as an extension to CGminer, a standard operating system used by almost all commercial mining rigs, has been particularly complex, given the intricacies of more than 50,000 lines of open-source C-code developed by the CGminer community. The key issues have been addressed and the Company is performing intensive live mining tests 24/7 using ASIC-based Bitcoin mining devices connected to two large mining pools." As I understand things CGMiner is released under some form of Open Source license which I would assume requires that any developments are released back to the community. I believe BitMain has not behaved honorably in respect of this. QBT itself often makes noises about others not making their IP available resulting in delays for them as they have to reverse engineer things and then in the next breath talk about all the Patents they are filing to protect their own IP. It very much looks to be the case that they are targeting modern rigs including the latest offerings from BitMain and, if you believe their press have managed to do this using a modified version of CGMiner which at the moment does not seem to support these rigs. I doubt that they will release this back to the community. In case you are wondering I can't say I really like the company and their lack of transparency. However I would be interested in your thoughts both on the Company, the Companies Technology and its prospects of success and their underlying behaviour. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
