Quantum Blockchain Techn... Share Discussion Threads

[ellipses] 28/6/2026 10:23:23

Interesting what a misleading statement in an RNS can do to trading activity.

Of course some might attribute the following to the dead end restart of research into Quantum Computing described as having a possible future impact.

Not exactly the same as a short term gain in one to two weeks for what many would have considered to be the possible grant of a patent.









Apologies for the blowout.

[kennewil] 28/6/2026 10:16:15

459 "absolute proof", we don't require that for locking someone up for life. We only require proof beyond reasonable doubt.On the other hand mathematicians do require absolute proof and the cryptographic algorithims used in bitcoin were designed my mathematicians.So if you think, based on the evidence put forwards that QBT are a bunch of shysters, then you would not invest. This is the position that most people of sound mind would make.

[iceagefarmer] 28/6/2026 09:24:51

commercial deal more likely

[flc] 28/6/2026 08:58:51

Talking of boring, Finals tomorrow or Tuesday and another £3m - £4m loss…fact boys, not fiction. $64k question, will they hit the deadline or will the shares be suspended?

[flc] 28/6/2026 08:01:48

Mikey, it’s getting very boring mate..move on.

[mikey_dj] 28/6/2026 07:32:17

Fridge Magnet No. 2 deserves credit for one thing.

When challenged, he eventually revised "the company lied" to "the wording may have been misleading."

That's called refining a position in light of further information.

Which rather illustrates the point.

Claims made with certainty deserve to be challenged.

Sometimes they survive scrutiny.

Sometimes they evolve.

Sometimes they quietly retreat.

That is precisely why I continue to counter false, misleading or unsupported claims as they appear.

It may be frustrating for Fridge Magnet No. 2, but robust debate works rather better when conclusions follow the evidence, rather than the other way around.

[iceagefarmer] 27/6/2026 22:06:07

i wonder if prof. gardin will get the same headlines in the not too distant future

An Accrington tech entrepreneur who founded a quantum computing firm has become a billionaire after the company he founded went public on the US stock exchange.


Ilyas Khan, 63, who helped save Accrington Stanley FC back in 2009, saw 'Quantinuum' valued at over $15.6 billion after it sold 28 million shares at $60 each on June 3.

The shares opened at $58 per share on June 9, and Mr Khan, who owns around 15 per cent of the company, is now said to be worth $2.2bn (£1.6bn).

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 20:16:39

Did you see how I recognized and corrected my error? You should try it sometime. Of course it might prove to be difficult to extract errors from falsehoods, conflation and misrepresentation. Much better to forget about them and invent some more.

[mikey_dj] 27/6/2026 20:02:29

Fridge Magnet No. 2 and friends now appear to be arguing from the absence of evidence.

"Because I can't see a record, it definitely didn't happen."

That's a much stronger claim than the documents support.

The public file wrapper is an important source of information, but simply asserting that every conceivable communication would necessarily appear there requires evidence of its own.

Once again we're presented with certainty where a more cautious conclusion would be appropriate.

The public record raises legitimate questions about the prosecution timeline.

It does not entitle anyone to state, as fact, that no other relevant communication or submission could possibly have taken place.

Questions are evidence-based.

Absolute claims require absolute proof.

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 19:53:12

You can't even give an honest appraisal of your own actions.

[sharedestiny] 27/6/2026 19:41:56

If any informal communication took place, then there would be a record of that fact in the application file history (AKA file wrapper). While such a record might not include the content of the communication, it will at the very least record the date of the communication, the parties involved, and a reason for the communication.

There is no such record in QBT's US patent file wrapper so we can be confident that no such informal communication occurred.

[mikey_dj] 27/6/2026 19:41:08

Fridge Magnet No. 2 appears frustrated that his steady haemorrhaging of false, misleading and unsupported claims is no longer passing unchallenged.

That, I'm afraid, is unlikely to change.

Every time a narrative is presented as fact, every time speculation is promoted to certainty, or every time a conclusion outruns the available evidence, I'll continue to point it out.

Not because I expect to change Fridge Magnet No. 2's mind.

I don't.

It's because bulletin boards work best when readers can see both the claim and the challenge.

Questions are welcome.

Healthy scepticism is welcome.

Presenting assumptions as established facts deserves to be challenged.

That may be frustrating for Fridge Magnet No. 2.

It isn't going away.

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 19:30:20

I'm quite happy with misleading as a consolation prize. It's another example in a long string of them where you can't trust the meaning of what the company publishes.

I note that once again your furtive imagination forces you to suggest that I stated that the application was abandoned. I did not.

It's never enough to rest on your laurels such as they are. You still have to twist and distort things to get to your happy place.

[sharedestiny] 27/6/2026 19:29:32

> Chocolate Paperclip advises that the response noted in the 7th May announcement may have been informal.

That looks like an AI hallucination. According to 37 CFR § 1.2 there is no scope to informal interaction.

"1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
All business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt."

[mikey_dj] 27/6/2026 19:19:54

Fridge Magnet No. 2 appears to have performed one of his trademark mid-thread pivots.

At 14:20 the verdict was absolute.

"That's one lie from the company."

Two hours later it became:

"If an informal submission... the company did not 'lie'. Worst case the wording was misleading."

Quite a climb down.

Which is exactly why I challenged your conclusion rather than the filing dates.

The public file certainly raises a legitimate question about the timing of the amendment.

It does not, on its own, prove a knowingly false statement.

More importantly, you've completely ignored what was actually filed on 26 June.

The patent attorneys submitted:

amended claims,
detailed technical arguments,
and a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).

An RCE is not an abandonment.

It is the formal mechanism used to reopen prosecution after a Final Office Action so the Examiner can continue examining the amended claims.

In other words, the application remains very much alive.

The attorneys have also repeatedly stated that the amendments were made in accordance with the Examiner's suggestions from the April interview.

The next meaningful event isn't today's filing date.

It's the Examiner's response to those amended claims.

That response will tell us whether the amendments have overcome the objections.

As usual, Fridge Magnet No. 2 skipped straight past the current procedural position and headed directly for "the company lied."

Questions deserve answers.

Verdicts require proof.

Even Fridge Magnet No. 2 now appears to recognise the difference.

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 16:27:41

Chocolate Paperclip advises that the response noted in the 7th May announcement may have been informal. Also as to the submission being made after the 19th the applicant also paid for an extension.

In effect if an informal submission of claims was submitted for consideration by the examiner the company did not 'lie' in their PRN. Worst case the wording was misleading.

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 16:11:39

1) The PRN of 7th May stated the response had been filed.
2) The case file shows the submission was filed on 26th June.

There are no weasel words in the PRN.

The Company’s US attorneys have now submitted a set of amended claims for the US Patent Examiner to consider in more detail.

That lie is separate from the equally dubious 'expectation' of a response withing one to two weeks from the examiner.

All of this information was included in my previous posts but naturally you want to weasel your way out of accepting the facts.

If and when the discussion gets going over on the LSE I presume you will make similar efforts to twist and distort what has happened and I have no doubt you will continue to do so here.

[mikey_dj] 27/6/2026 15:54:40

That's quite a leap.

Could you now explain precisely how this amounts to a material lie rather than an apparent discrepancy in the patent prosecution timeline?

What evidence do you have that:

the company knowingly made a false statement on 7 May;
there was no prior submission, procedural filing or patent attorney action that the RNS was referring to; and
investors were materially misled by that statement?

The documents you've produced appear to show a substantive filing on 26 June.

They do not, by themselves, establish dishonest intent.

There's a considerable difference between asking for an explanation and accusing a listed company of lying.

I'm interested in your evidence, not your teenage conspiracy conclusion.

[mikey_dj] 27/6/2026 14:54:44

Fridge Magnet No. 2 appears to have confused "the expected timetable wasn't met" with "the company lied."

Those are not the same thing.

The May RNS expressed an expectation of receiving feedback within 1–2 weeks.

The fact that further documents appear in the prosecution history in late June does not, by itself, prove the amended claims were not submitted in May or that the May statement was knowingly false.

It proves the prosecution was still active.

That's all.

Once again, Fridge Magnet No. 2 has sprinted from "unexpected timing" to "lie" without stopping at the evidence in between.

[ellipses] 27/6/2026 14:20:22

Aha! We have an update on the US application...



Items electronically filed on 26th June 2026 by the patent attorney.

7th May 2026



The US Patent Examiner indicated that certain subject-matter from the description should be recited in the claims, which define the scope of protection being sought. The Company’s US attorneys have now submitted a set of amended claims for the US Patent Examiner to consider in more detail. The Company expects to receive the Examiner’s feedback on the amended claims within the next 1-2 weeks. QBT will provide further updates as appropriate.

So that's one lie from the company.

Francesco Gardin, CEO and Executive Chairman of QBT, commented:

Regarding the US patent application, the recent interview with the USPTO Examiner has provided useful direction on how to refine our claims, particularly around the treatment of reusable values and their implementation. We believe that the requested clarifications are consistent with our existing specification and have been addressed through the targeted amendments provided. We are now awaiting the Examiner’s feedback on these proposed changes.

and that's FG repeating the lie.

No doubt MikeyDJ will be along soon to explain why telling lies is not telling lies.

Perhaps someone can cross-post to the LSE and kick the loonies off