Post #25152

fcf118844bd696317240f189be85a58f24a65acb9cbd1264178b6f3b46967945
14d99da10761e083ad5cd40fa30908dcf9eee98a749557327e90d28f0a42e6e3
Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

{"entry_date":1582282912,"post_data":{"edit_count":3,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"131b72379fa5c071d470d794562b39a0b4dd23be23266b478536e51a1d81c0dfa78104ca487832de5c61a148146696671fc1040f5efd6f484abb80ea279412ec","node_id":52,"post_date":1582282773,"thread_id":3423,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3423#post-25152"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Voting NO on anchor and Oracle master grants
[USER=114]@Valentin Ganev[/USER] That interpretation can work. But what about the Doc001 and what about being able to trust the standing parties to uphold the stable price and anchors no matter what?

You want a trustworthy party when making a decission to go with a protocol. Yes the discussion about providing updates is good. Yes choosing another approach when it doesn't happen is good. No potentially just trusting it will work itself out when the majority would have voted no, or acting like it is not that important is not my definition of a party I can trust when choosing for Factom.

As I said before in other occasions, I do hope people sometimes take the perspective of large entities when looking at the protocol and governance as a whole.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top