Topic: [ANN] FACTOM - Introducing Honesty to Record-Keeping - page 299. (Read 2115900 times)

Anyone notice this commit?

https://github.com/FactomProject/CarvoyantDummyCode

This is an exciting commit: https://github.com/FactomProject/Testing

Yes, seems like good coin and good road map,i bought some few days ago

Agreed! The simplest solutions are often the most powerful, I think. Google's probably the best contemporary example of this. Not that it's a "simple" solution, but it solves a complex problem in an extremely elegant way (like Factom, I think), and that value slowly but very significantly became apparent.

And yes, one of the most interesting things about FCT, imo, is the ability to prove that something didn't happen. As far as I can tell that's a very rare ability, and the possibilities of what that actually allows are only gradually becoming apparent.

Nothing to thank for!

What is really important is context. Single informations are nearly worthless because even if it is an correct and objective information/fact, knowledge (context-informations) is needed to interpret it. The more context-informations you have the more it's possible to "zoom out" to see a bigger picture. And if informations are nearly totally subjective it's even more important.

Your example is interesting. I also pay high attention to interviews for example and if I can find out if somebody shows real and natural self-confidence or arrogance or uncertainty and so on. It's never objective and I believe it's important not to be sure about such conclusions. But I write down my conclusions as assumptions. And I do that over time. Like a diary for projects I follow. It's always "information" plus my "interpretations". So it maybe says more about me than about the project ;-) but what I can do is to find out if I'm more right than wrong over time.

And btw: That't also something that I find fascinating about Factom. It fits to my way of thinking about all kinds of things, because under the line it does the same as a system. It records hashes that are connected to informations. And it's not just about what is there. It's also about what is not there. One single information wouldn't say much. But a sum of information can reveal a lot. And if something is missing exactly that can be revealing. It's really a powerful idea, even if it seems simple.

tempus - thank you very much for your answer, Im very happy

1. I'm not totally sure to understand correctly. But you can do basically two things with your Factoids:
a) trade it on an exchange
b) convert Factoids into Entry Credits to use Factom to record data.

And if you do b) your Factoids are "consumed" or "burned" - out of the system

2. about 73,000 Factoids each months. I believe that is a fix number and won't change.

3. Is an old information they did not update. It is kind of burned.

a) It was shown in the Block Explorer but it's not anymore. No clue why. It is possible with the software but I didn't try yet. Brian Deery explained how to do it. You also can use this: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/factom/
But I know that coinmarketcap also is not always up  date regarding the total supply (I know it because of another project)

b) It's kind of predictable because Factoids are converted into Entry Credits and there 73k are created each months. What I expect is that there will be inflation in the first time (maybe for years) because I don't believe that it will fall below a price where more Factoids are converted into EC's than new created. But the total number is not predictable. Over time I believe it could go up to 10 Mio or something like that. But I don't believe the initial total supply ever will double.

Many thanks for this, tempus! The github overview was really helpful, and I also esp like what you say in the quote above about more creative ways of collecting info. As someone who doesn't develop, a lot of my "research" is trying to figure out who the smartest person in the room is, and what they actually think. I admit part of my conviction in MAID came about from a YouTube video of the team's presentation, after which there was a Q+A in which an obviously super-smart guy was asking these really technical questions, and at one point, in response to one answer, muttered "Whooooa!" But I'm trying to bring a little more science into the art of research, so the explanation of how to look at github really helped.

Hello.

I have a few questions from
https://www.factom.com/faqs/  I have just read:

1. What happens with Factoinds (transferable tokens) after the protocol buys them from me (or App)? Who takes it?
2. What will be the new Factoid creation rate? Can it change?
3.  "How do factoids get sent back to the protocol? Is it a kind of burn?"<...>"The Factoid paid out is calculated by dividing the total number of Factoid in the protocol by the number of outstanding Entry Credits."
This last sentence rises me more questions:
a) Where can I check (find) "the total number of Factoids" and "the number of outstanding Entry Credits"  for this moment?
b)  "the total number of Factoid" - can we predict how many Factoid will be in the future?

Thank you for any comment, link, etc.  

I'm also no coder. I'm not able to read out much infos out of code. What I do with everything is more that I collect informations and try to ask myself: For what does it stand? And the github, without other informations around it, is not that useful. But at least it's visible if there is activity and how much. And some more things.

If you look into it:
https://github.com/FactomProject/

You see the "headlines". And you can see when there were the last updates. Above is currently:

factomd
Milestone2 work
Updated 40 minutes ago

Without context-information it doesn't say that much. But if you also look on other updates it already says: high activity. Because there are several others that were updated the last 24 hours.

But you also can click on one, if we do it with factomd you can scroll down and read what it is about. It's an explanation for Developers/Coders but it's readable and we can find out what it basically is about. And if you already know that everybody is waiting for the next big update, and it's called Milestone 2, you can see: factomd is basically Milestone 2 - which becomes clear in the explanation. For example:

"This is the M2 codebase, which is a direct implementation of the Factom Whitepaper."

You can also see who made the update. It's above: Steven Masley Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/m2-api'

You can click on "branches" (also above) and then you have "Default branches" and "Active branches". In the second one you'll find the latest updates and infos about the persons who did it and when it was updated. You also can click on it and look into the code if you like.


So, what could it stand for?

1. They are very active. Very often there are several updates per day and often on weekends as well.
2. It's about transparency. They obviously take it very seriously.
3. It says something about diligence. It's not just about hard work, it's also about accuracy.

I don't believe it's a big thing for them to do it that way. But if you have some experience with other projects in the Cryptospace it's different to a lot of them. I know of projects that are under development and they pretend to be open source, but the last update is very long ago. If those teams should work hard they are not accurate. And who knows if they really work on it? I don't buy projects like that.

And like I've said: It's not just about that. I try to collect little pieces of informations out of everything that is communicated. Communication is never just "writing down what I want to say". It's everything that is expressed and perceptible and in general it's more than people intentionally want to show. You could analyze my posts and find out a lot more about me than I obviously say and maybe I wouldn't even like everything you find out. What I try to say is: It can be done with everything. With Twitter-accounts, reddit, videos of Interviews, etc. And it's never just about what is there. The context is very often also about what is not there.

And I focus very much on all kinds of communication to find out more than is intentionally communicated. But it's only possible to come to good conclusions in combination with context-infos over time. And if you always ask: "For what could it stand for?" you'll see more over time than before and you'll learn more and you'll come to better conclusions. That doesn't mean to be on the safe side. It's still possible to be very wrong. But it's also possible to reduce the risk of being wrong.

https://twitter.com/FastCryptoTrade/status/752834370629689344

Agreed. I'm somewhat new to this and have been trying to "read" FCT's progress on github. Does anyone have any suggestions on what exactly to look for and how to parse what it may mean? I realize nothing certain with this ... Thanks for suggestions.

Some great points.  This basically sums it up though.

Interesting answer. But my problem with your complaints is not that you have a different opinion. What constantly triggers me is shallowness, because you always do the same: You implicate something without detailing out what is behind. And while I can understand some disappointment about M2, because it's a simple fact that it's late, I think you sometimes cross the line with some of your implications. And even regarding M2 you are superficial. Because it's always about reasons. The question should be why they are late and it's not hard to exclude some potential reasons you constantly present as possibilities. You questioned that they are working hard. You questioned their dedication. My simple questions are not more than meant as motivation to detail that out. But you never do that and we play that game since months. I mean, we have something in common: We don't write thousands of lines of code to develop something. We both have time for more or less silly discussions in a forum.  

So let's do that at least a little bit deeper.


Agree! Nobody of us can really know. I believe, even the team is maybe still not totally sure when they will release it. But my assumption is perfectionism and my reason to believe that is mainly the github but also that they show that they work hard on a lot of other fronts. Reading posts of Brian Deery, watching Interviews with Paul Snow, seeing Tiana Laurence explaining Factom on conferences, seeing Peter Kirby doing the same (last video for example) gives me an opposite impression of a lack of dedication. I have zero doubt that they are very dedicated, that they're working hard and that they are honest. And I would really like to learn more in the case I'm wrong with that.




There may be some misconceptions about the word "Investors" here. I mean, what is that? Did we really invest in Factom? The ICO-buyers did and VC-Investors did, but we are in fact more speculators. We bought Factoids on the market. In my case because I wasn't even aware of the ICO. Otherwise I would have bought. What I want to say with that: You act as if they owe you something while it's on you to do your "job" and show some dedication to do it right. If you have reasons to believe there is something wrong with Factom, just sell. If you believe they should speak more about what's going on you shouldn't ignore what they let us know (and that's a lot. new video yesterday!) and the reasons they gave several times for not repeating that they won't give promises or fixed dates.

And that's something you also misrepresent: While they made guesses when there would be the M2-release they never made promises or gave an exact date.





And that's what I meant with "crossing the line". You spread around the possibility they could be in financial problems. You demand them to share this info with us which implicates that info is true. And then you say "This might be a pure speculation, however, this is what I was told."

Not even important if true or not? It's really revealing about yourself. Because what do you do here? At least you should do what you demand them to do. Be transparent! Share your infos! And I'm not saying that because I believe your infos are valid. I believe that if you would detail this out it would become obvious that it's bullshit. I mean, who are these "other Investors" (which implicates you are an Investor)? Who are they to believe they are that good informed? Did you ask those guys why they sure about that and how valid this info is?

And what do we know about the financial situation of Factom? We know that they got some money because of their ICO and seed fundings. The latest news was about $199k from DHS. We see a growing team, they hire while it would be more rational to fire people if there would be financial problems. We also know, and that is a fun fact: They got only 1/3 of the ICO-money for M1. You criticize that they didn't release M2 yet, but if they would run out of money exactly that would unlock another 1/3 of the ICO.



Which "coins"? And just by the way: To say "another coins" implicates that you believe Factom develops a "coin".

And to say they wouldn't post very often which would be unacceptable in your opinion is again more about you as that it's an info about them. It's not even true. There is much more action in Factom when it comes to news than in a lot of other projects I know of.




You say: "we have served the purpose of providing initial capital"

That's new to me. You did buy into the ICO? Or how did you provide initial capital for Factom? Didn't you say you bought after launch on Polo? And those who really bought into the ICO have not much reason to complain. I don't know much opportunities where it's possible to make 1000% in less than 12 months and even more if we focus on the ATH of march.

And what is it that you want to "feel important"? How should they show you that you are important to them and what do you do to show them you are? Accept it as a fact that we are not important. This is not a coin. We can show support and we also can give critique as feedback and maybe it's helpful. But Factom is not a cryptocurrency. They don't focus on "Factoid-adopters". We have the opportunity to benefit regarding the price because of the work they do, because of the fact that they focus on real users. And please answer this question: Do you know any other project that is taken serious from companies, institutions and even countries like Factom?  



Again you try to hide what's behind. You just claim something as fact while standing in front of a mirror. It's all about you. Which "currencies" (again you implicate it's about a currency in Factom)?

You often mentioned Ethereum as shiny example for how it should be in your opinion. The Ethereum team would be professional. They would deliver. They would be transparent. But they need a Hard Fork. They need a DAO-bail-out. They have serious problems because of Solidity! Ethereum has no real solution for their economy - plans to switch to PoS with Casper without really knowing how and how a PoS-System could end in longterm.

And like I've said before: DAO showed a lot, and I'm not speaking about the tech or the hack. It showed priorities. It showed that they are willing to risk their economy to give an impression of value that doesn't exist and never existed. Nobody with an IQ above room-temperature and some experience can seriously believe that DAO was funded without millions of team-money. It was all ETH. They funded an experimental hype to use that to fund other Ethereum-projects to develop an illusion of value. Nothing of that would have gone beyond Ethereum itself. A big bubble. And than there was the Solidity-weakness and now they have to face serious problems.

I also say that because if you want to make up theories about financial problems, you should think about potential motivations not just to release something like DAO as a nice social-technical-experiemt but a totally overhyped and blown up bubble. After reading about the idea I thought "Nice experiment". After reading about the $150 Mio funding the picture became clearer. Taking such a risk is stupid or highly motivated. And my assumption is that it's very shady. There are theories that DAO was meant as solution to find a way out. Because it gives the Opportunity to fund something with ETH that is not ETH to use that to fund the own people and/or to sell it for Bitcoin or even Dollar. Think about that. And why don't you complain in the Ethereum-Thread?

I mean, one thing you could focus on first is how often Vitalik Buterin writes there. I know when it was the last time. January 12. Not sure about other team-members but if you believe BCT is that important - let them know. And then do some research about their fundings and finances and potential financial problems. You'll have fun doing that, I promise. Or not, because you are invested.




It's not logical to believe in the potential of a project while not believing in the team. If I would detail you out a great plan of a money-machine-project it would still be stupid to invest a single satoshi if I'm not able to develop it. And while I believe that your intentions are not to FUD it is still what you do, if you just try to make points with a lack of arguments and a lack of facts while spreading rumors that are obviously based on hearsay. I also write down my theories about Ethereum for example, but at least I give arguments. And I could also give prove that I warned to invest in DAO before their ICO was finished. I could give prove that I said things like "I believe Ethereum will run into problems" many months ago. And I'm not an expert. I just think about what I know as facts and what can be recognized "between the lines".

You poor thing, you must feel a little like the man with the stick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-J-cSnhkkI

I believe there will be a M2 release, when will that take place, I have no idea. I do not appreciate the fact there s obviously big lag regarding M2 implementation which is unacceptable in tech world but it has happened before. However, once this takes place, it s a normal business practice for a representative of a company to go public and explain to people what s going on. Keeping investors in the dark is a really, really bad example of how things SHOULD NOT be done. I do also believe they ve been having financing problems, based on my info I ve received from a few other investors, they refused to share this info with us as well as any other info about the progress. This might be a pure speculation, however, this is what I was told. Factom team posts here or anywhere else not very often and I find that also unacceptable, compared to some other coins I have invested in. I also believe they do not really care about early investors at all since we have served the purpose of providing initial capital and re not important anymore. This is why I do not like.

I do also hold several other currencies but no other team has kept me in the dark the way Factom does. The easiest way would be to sell, which I already did once, but I do believe this project s got a lot of potential. Just not sure if the team s got what it takes to deliver. So, my criticism is aimed towards improving things not at shilling or trolling this forum the way some other people do.

 

1. You believe they don't work hard enough? Why?
2. You believe they are not dedicated enough? Why?
3. You believe there won't be a M2 release?

? So only Factom shills who post great things about Factom should be around? Sorry my friend, great things re result of hard work and dedication and not based on comments somebody posts on a forum. In other words, M2 or price growth will not take place cause you ve got happy thoughts about it.

Looking at the commits history on github, one could be forgiven for suspecting they're putting the finishing touches on M2 ...

New video from Factom:

Factom at the Texas Linux Fest 2016
"Our core developer Michael Beam presents Factom at the Texas Linux Fest 2016. http://2016.texaslinuxfest.org/node/26"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZUr3-7g_s