Post #31276

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
6dffbb9894d86e1f75dc06867675bdbaec8b0aedcd1c8240d265f02d96cce062
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610513045,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"4e90ba38a50820568e392f70499ed53b7eaa81cbc5b29c05d956b346945f1aa41012f87ed20e5222ec7cd11ab2aab833f7e571f69958bfca8b537dd63b4e75dc","node_id":52,"post_date":1610513045,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":29},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31276"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
This is a pretty good list of what we have on the table. Even with a possible director on the way, I think this is positive.

We are going to be voting "yes".
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top