Post #31277

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
8b19eeaa156ec2f0e56bd564576b3d2d38b54d5dc556ba19e04a330180119749
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610520711,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"c2a15d12c6285da06048c312010b3138ff9cc862c1dd98dd6f3d536df7999f14e8a96c311f64374f8bddf6d108221e39204a595e7823f954fe283474c730ef68","node_id":52,"post_date":1610520711,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":227},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31277"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
I do think too this is positive. It simply states what we are currently working on and starts to showcase our ambition as a protocol. This is a first good iteration to initiate a positive dynamic.

I do not see how that could be bad. Any new leadership structure could help refine/correct/complete this.

We will be voting "Yes" as it is.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top