Post #3754

Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Veteran Blockchain Investment Firm
The primary reason why we see the need for a Factom on Factom technology is if the data is critical enough to justify a private chain, yet can be committed to the mainnet in a secure way that still generates EC usage, albeit low. Even with a private chain, being able to validate whether the data was tampered or changed can be valuable to an audit agency. Considering the nature of the US Government, and potential of some of the use cases we have in mind, even committing hashes of the information to the public blockchain may not be appropriate when planning over a lifetime. [/quote]
Could you go into more details. I don't get the critical enough data to justify it in the context of hashes (pure data on Factom certainly)?
I could see other reasons for instance, but that is not about the hashes themselves or lifetime planning. A blockchain also means you have a time associated at commit time. Hashes are one-way functions that over time might mean a collision could be forced if flaws in the hash mechanism is found. When entropy is too low on the data you are hashing you have a potential problem, but then you should be asking yourself whether it should be hashed on the blockchain anyway. I fail to see how Factom on Factom would help in the above situation where hashes are being used. Please ELI5 me.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.