Post #25280

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
502d95df69ce790de12d98c6df0c2367376e76eff7c1d32d551b15c11c798bc8
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":1582382453,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":1582382398,"last_edit_user_id":8,"message_sha512":"92905ea1669603d6b709dca23e98e6581d902e95376ab5a662d94fc09a9138c7e8060f28ea759e5a8e04039f97c41f7a0f4cb943ea09b5aab9b4e6bc8be5ca98","node_id":102,"post_date":1582367611,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25280"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
First of all I am writing this as chair of BIF and co-founder/CTO Sphereon .

We already acknowledged the need for updates and also mentioned our Product Owner Abe will start providing those. Currently he is reading up and he will be providing updates and feedback soon.

You do realize that an entity that brings investors (Off-blocks, Triall and others I cannot yet disclose) new ANO candidates, clients (governments, banks, industry), products, paid/free resources, does a lot of outreach, is in committees and working groups. Has a name to protect and at the same time is being asked by other protocols and large entities to create integrations with their solutions (paid to be clear), but holds them off, by this type of rigidness and with the amount of money and resources we direct to the protocol , is going to create the exact opposite of what you are trying to do here. I guess I already decided right now to go ahead with an integration for LTO network as they are happy to see us no questions asked.

It is in all respect the behavior I have seen from some small fish (let's just call it what it is at this point), trying to push for transparency and accountability in all aspects, instead of starting from a baseline of trust when you clearly see (and know from private discussions) a party executing for the betterment of the protocol.

So you really expect let's say a Google to do every single vote and write reports about what they are doing even though you know they are doing these things for the protocol? You really believe they will tie there name to it? You wandered why MC immediately resigned? They cannot have their name associated with this type of approach in public. We can't either, so we will have to discuss internally.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top