Topic: [ANN] FACTOM - Introducing Honesty to Record-Keeping - page 359. (Read 2115876 times)

According to the US congress, Paul Snow talks too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGo9bpPV3A&feature=youtu.be&t=6271
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGo9bpPV3A&feature=youtu.be&t=7635

Nor will Merkle trees help the Cubs win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGo9bpPV3A&feature=youtu.be&t=4441

My thoughts exactly. This re getting more and more interesting.

If you see all this innovation and adoption you just wanna buy more and more factoms

Speak o' the devil: how's this for coincidence in timing?

"India scans a billion irises in interest of national security"


Privacy advocates...

Anyhoo: thanks for the response, Paul. Or Mr. Snow.

Paul Snow Testifying before U.S. Congress.
Disrupter Series: Digital Currency and Blockchain Technology.
The Energy and Commerce Committee.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016 - 11:00am
https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/disputer-series-digital-currency-and-block-chain-technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGo9bpPV3A (Live broadcast ended)

Wow.  Can someone please record his testimony please?

https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/disputer-series-digital-currency-and-block-chain-technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGo9bpPV3A

and what price are you paying compared to market price

I am willing to use escrow or pay first to reputable members - this should not be a problem.

Great, I fully agree with this. Can we have some tentative deadline for Milestone 2? Are we still on track for the end of the first quarter?

Clear pumper and scammer. He posted the same text to several other forums, I presume only coins he s been holding to try to create fake pumps. This is what I mean when I say I hate speculators, they are SLIME of crypto. I advise BIG TIME CAUTION when dealing with these kind of people.

ATM, there s no 73k Factoids created per month. Current inflation s 0. This inflation scenario will kick in the future to balance supply and demand.

You should present ppl with an escrow option, i'm very skeptical of your presentation over many coins.

I agree on the deflationary period. I do believe this is a great project.  EC'S are incredibly inexpensive. As a business model it gives Factom a great advantage. They will do well on fees to implement programs on top of factom.  The subscription fees for docusign, etc are very very expensive in comparison.

Unless there are industries, govt branches, etc that produce millions of entries per day, week per month the deflationary period could be years.

EDIT!! Below added.

How about this you have a very limited supply of servers, why not let the FCT holders purchase server space. Before they come online. Kind of like a server space ICO/IPO in this case ISS (initial server space lol).

It seems like to good of a deal for those who run servers to reap all the FCT amongst them.

When the Factom explorer went live on 09-01 there were about 8759965.42635400 factoids.  Now there are
8753230.36770280.

So around 6700 burned in a little more than 6 months or about 1000 per month.  And not much is going on but testing.

Point being, I suspect we'll be seeing deflation before too long despite the 73,000 factoids being created per month.

Hello, Guys,

I'm looking for major FCT holders for the purpose of doing OTC(over the counter) deals to acquire this currency without moving market prices at exchanges.
I'll start buying April/May on behalf of my clients and continue to do so for at least a year.

If you are interested, send me a pm or an email, with these details:
Minimum amount i could buy from you, maximum amount i could buy in one operation, your preferred payment method and how to get in touch with you.

Is my math correct? Current price, btc .0050903 roughly $2.10 = 2100 EC. If servers were online 75k tokens per month would generate at this price $157 500.00 you'd need to have 157,500 000 entries to burn that amount.

Do you guys have use cases that require millions of EC's per month? just curious:)

This is why we concentrate on the protocol, and applications of the protocol.  There is nothing we can do about the price of the token anyway.  But we can deliver code.

I can't lie and say that the token price doesn't drive some interest to what we are doing though.   But the way Factom is designed, inflation kicks in if there is too much speculation, and deflation kicks in if the speculators drive the price too low.   Because the tokens are consumed by use of the protocol, the price over the long haul should be stabilized by applications using Factom.

Identity was the use case I was working on that motivated me to design NotaryChains (which became Factom).   My original idea was to have Factom out of the door by January 2015.   Turns out to be way harder than I gave it credit for.   But we are making some really good progress.

Once we get the protocol stable, Identity is certainly an area we will be working on.  We need it for Factom, after all!

Paul Snow

Hey Brian, or Mr. Deery if you prefer ,

Have you and the rest of the team looked into using Factom for proof of identity? That's become an issue, albeit a controversial one, in the U.S. this election season. It occurred to me that using an entry credit to enter a hash of a stable "proof of ID" would be a major service with "yuge" demand these days.

Now, I know that this use is a little off-mission and would be tricky. For example, a hash of a scanned solid-plastic ID card (eg., driver's license) would be thrown off if there were even a teeny scratch on the card. A hash of biometric data like a fingerprint or retinal scan would be thrown off by a small deviation in angle and perspective. And so on.

But hashing, despite those feasibility obstacles, is a provable means to refute the objection to biometric IDing: namely, a government database with all the data just waiting to be 'borrowed'. A hash of (say) a fingerprint scan, retinal scan or DNA analysis would be undecodable, thus protecting privacy. Even if the entire database were 'browsed', the miscreant couldn't make any sense out of the hashes. Nor could any other bad actor.

Have you and the others given any thought to a para-E-Verify system as a proof of concept? Based upon my vague sampling of the political winds, there's a good shot that E-Verify will be made mandatory. And, if you remember the Obamacare-website fustercluck, I think you'll agree with me that the present database used by E-Verify is quite corrupted (in the sense of false data.) Factom having a ready-to-go proof-of-concept replacement system that's provably accurate may be a real fustercluck-stopping help.

Just my thoughts. If it doesn't fit, or if I'm thinking too ambitiously, please let me know.