Post #31355

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
8e5249572b3b169000a01f4a6f2b060add58958806b5b4332e3a3a8fb4351ee5
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610894640,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"25d2f40fa820f308cbd00fc363252ea537badb0461b90a05d3acfdbb0ed98e62381dcac4784467b928fffbe680a5f4791bedccf8d6dfaa9d57bbcd351407c17f","node_id":52,"post_date":1610894527,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":32},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31355"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
[QUOTE="Alex, post: 31354, member: 11"]
I have no way to accurately assess whether these are realistic targets. I do not know how much progress has been made, what is actively being planned, or how much work is left to do.

I do not want to undermine those who are making progress, but I also do not want to advance a plan that I believe might give any potential FCT holder unrealistic expectations. As such, Factoshi will abstain.
[/QUOTE]
[USER=11]@Alex[/USER], both you and [USER=10]@Paul B.[/USER] expressed concern over the provided 12 month timeline.

Would you be willing to place a vote (for or against) if the applicable period was removed and instead left open?
If yes, I’m happy to accommodate.

Part of this discussion is to integrate feedback from the community so we have something we can all stand behind.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top