Oh great, another "2.0" collection of developers who didn't sit and think about the implications of burdening the blockchain with spurious data.
Is there a reason why developers go for the "treat the blockchain like a hard drive" approach, other than intellectual laziness? It seems to crop up every time someone has their "new" idea about how to use Bitcoin tech.
Is there a reason why developers go for the "treat the blockchain like a hard drive" approach, other than intellectual laziness? It seems to crop up every time someone has their "new" idea about how to use Bitcoin tech.
It's proof of stake on federated servers, and in addition, they have an altcoin to enable purchases in their ecosystem, as well as a second tier of tokens that can't even be traded. So, the data integrity aspect is heavily compromised, the system is over-complicated, they're selling their altcoin before they've fully designed the spec, and yet they will no doubt be charging "blockchain" prices.
Given the drawbacks, only a moron would actually choose to use Factom (I understand a number of Central American governments were interested). Many a moron will discover exactly how much this resembles genuine blockchain technology once they get their fingers burned (witness the crowdsale figures in the Factom thread in the Project development sub, over 1000 BTC pissed away).
