Post #25326

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
32e077ccbd5f9813cf14b012eeaacdf4331c41556a289c21204676ee3ee50815
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":1582381847,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"7b43390a56bd999f70c1aaff8faa0534147602a71f7dd74318c0c82aba4d25d3a0f8f2802ee865500433fb903f8502b5d19ca64567021c401a723eca7c038912","node_id":102,"post_date":1582381821,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25326"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
Tor, I think I have explained in this thread an entity like BIF/Sphereon is not gonna play exactly as you want them to. We have more to consider than only the protocol. At the same time I certainly hope people do not question what we are doing for the protocol.

Thinking that removing standing will expedite us moving, is not happening I can tell you that. We will however think about what people discuss about our company and how that impacts our clients and whether we want to be part of that. So yes you can stick to your personal core values, but these aren't necessarily aligned by all parties.

If you believe that removing standing over reporting, whilst you know we are doing more than most parties here versus providing standing for some parties that do next to nothing but do report is the proper action. Sure do that. It just really isn't helping I think.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top