Post #31208

7c5e3989ac58c1917e30e10882c68ca90c8847b57a868d0620c996b1c299140d
ccc87e9c4410fd49a544b2674c09d4ed1c7f593b69e8964c79e430b5e30c4b2d
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

{"entry_date":1609359049,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"d53d2eb6695a47b057291978d50a51b5f3ddd61617616a041663599162476926be93ecefdae0b0fcdda6f8af0b63c80c4c67b230600a0bcb5fae8da1ecdfbfdc","node_id":52,"post_date":1609359049,"thread_id":5628,"user_id":117},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/factom-leadership-and-decision-making-vote.5628\/post-31208"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factom leadership and decision making vote
[USER=175]@WB[/USER] It sums it up well for me and it was also my original understanding of the question, hence I pointed to why I think a 'No' would be better. Since you are replying I assume you have discussed the question with Mike earlier(?) and if so then I think most of the lack of clarity has been removed for me. I think we will probably still discuss what special mandates should cover, but the differences in concept still remains.

I think having ANOs involved puts us back into a position where everything will be discussed at length, taking up time and again makes us focused on ourselves instead of the world around us. Also, I simply consider the risk that someone will abuse their position lower than you do, it seems.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top