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.
