Post #31386

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
1ddc6012635e8c419c7d4021fc781ad594e3afe6bd4d04dd93e17aae895f3b29
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611011648,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"bab9416a8d5222c18b255044383d205f36e2e414d8c6961c7ebcfc7620e07bd5bbbfceca303c302d9e1838ce89fdae47569c7e873cd56941fac89311efe74d9c","node_id":52,"post_date":1611011648,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":164},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31386"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Batched Amendment - Strategy and Resource Director Proposal
I too support thrashing this out here. We cannot afford to have the split in thinking about community direction that we currently have. There are merits to both side of this argument and it is our responsibility to find an agreeable way through it for the sake of Factom's future. Lets establish the things we do fully agree on and resolve those that we don't. There should be nothing more important to us all than this at the moment.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top