Post #25352

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
57703bfaa6cf8adfb546dec44d9cdf8bed72c1581c7bccfa3c7a0764a53302a4
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":1582387436,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"c3796b43b7c9ec0d366a5c6a38d9f4dc628fb86604ed4506d78176d4e2015623534b821cd19bb5dc38d0b94cde52247c55823a20e960aa003a953105d4a7c060","node_id":59,"post_date":1582387420,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":2},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25352"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[QUOTE="Tor Paulsen, post: 25348, member: 24"]
I would trust Factomize to operate at 0% efficiency, as I know David very well and their track record is stellar.

This is a principle decision because I do not believe our current system is able to properly assess how well low-efficiency ANOs are operating (just look at all the discontent we've seen the past year), and my opinion as a guide is development requiring an entity to operate at those low levels should be handled via the grant pool.

If Factomize decides to say "fuck it", fire their devs, and blame me for that while still having 81% support after I removed standing.. Well that's their decision.
[/QUOTE]
I blame you for having poorly thought band-aids on an arterial wound and passing it off as principled and hurting the ecosystem in the process.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top