Post #31316

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
7b930287f3c0eb9cf6fdbb8f2f46fbf18c6c321db0695040e0e5485181885d00
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610700748,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"4aed2d38513675cdcb11d8eef85537b144e5826ba47452e8497a93babd58f636fdd6da34c18e9a13ad2b86a58eac00a8b1b3e018690f60feba9d28a28a629ff9","node_id":52,"post_date":1610700748,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31316"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
I think what may help is rephrase this into a soft commitment towards an objective list. And then we get to what [USER=29]@PaulSnow[/USER] mentioned. A taxonomy of (on-going) efforts that can give extra confidence to grant applications. Overall I don't get a sense that the actual content is disputed heavily. Leadership will always be able to zoom in on certain slices or add new slices altogether.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top