Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

    @brighton36 Because I'm a liar, and Paul Snow has defeated me :)

    As you wish. Chris has acknowledged he isn't able to support the scam accusations he's leveled against Paul Snow or Factom so we can lock this thread and move on with our lives.

    Chris, please have evidence the next time you make a scam accusation or your thread will be locked to save us all the headache. You're welcome to make wild accusations elsewhere but you've abused the LTB platform and won't be given the benefit of the doubt next time since you caused so much drama here for apparently no purpose.

  • Re: Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

    Chris, why can't you answer the questions?

  • Re: Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

    It seems like answering the questions in an episode just caused more confusion, here are the questions again so you can respond clearly, point by point.

    @Adam, @brighton36, @junseth

    Here are 6 simple questions:

    1) You cite Factom's talking about developing solutions for Land Titles for countries, and assert we were discussing the Honduras project, even though we do not mention Honduras. What exactly is the ethical problem with discussing use cases that a startup is working to address?

    2) Provide one statement about land titles and/or the Honduras project made by Factom that was a lie. An actual quote please.

    3) You claim we withheld information about Epigraph's role in the Honduras project in order to mislead investors. Were they not given credit in the very first announcement?

    4) We used Koinify to run the token sale, and third parties to assess the development milestones that we must reach to unlock the funds raised by the token sale. Why do you neglect details about the Factom token sale that were designed to avoid the risk of people buying tokens for a protocol that was not delivered?

    5) Factom has delivered the protocol, which is now running. There are 10,000+ anchors in the Bitcoin blockchain. Isn't an operational protocol some indication of performance for those supporting Factom?

    6) The funds raised by Factom have been fairly modest. But we do have a team of developers, and we do our work in Github. Do you have any reason to believe that the funds raised by Factom are not being used to develop the project as it has been defined by our White Paper, the Consensus Paper, and the Factom Data Structure Details document?

  • Re: Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

    I modified my post for clarity before you responded, added this line

    "Your suggestion of locking the thread was accepted for a different reason than the one you proposed."

    We had been talking about when to lock it but wanted to avoid causing further drama since chris and joshua had also been making claims they also couldn't back up about LTBN censoring them. Chris suggesting the lock meant we wouldnt get more drama from censorship claims, thus the thread was locked.

    Is there any reason we shouldn't continue this discussion there? As nick said, the thread can be unlocked now that you're presenting evidence.

  • Re: Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

    Once somebody listens to it and either rebuts or concedes your points we can make a judgement based on whats happened so far. If you wanted your answer faster, post your response in readable form which would be easier to go point by point if needed. I'm sure it'll get done either way eventually.

    @brighton36 Probably this belongs in the last post - but we locked that ( so snow can't white-wash )

    I can see why you'd think it was locked because of Paul but it was actually locked because people were tired of your drama when you weren't willing to answer the questions and thus the conversation couldn't proceed in any productive way. Your suggestion of locking the thread was accepted for a different reason than the one you proposed.

    @cryptonaut

    Sure, I'l gladly lock this thread. If you ever decide to actually answer @PaulSnow's questions or bring some evidence to the table rather than trolling eachother, PM me and I may re-open it.

  • Re: I'm Moderating 2 Panels on Wednesday at the Future of Digital Currency Conference on Wednesday, Help me with good questions!

    Sounds like you should.

    Good news, I got the conference content minutes ago so we'll be going to new episodes again on Saturday.

  • Re: I'm Moderating 2 Panels on Wednesday at the Future of Digital Currency Conference on Wednesday, Help me with good questions!

    We actually did talk about your question and I had a woman from the US postal service come up to me afterwards. I'm still trying to get those recordings, which is just another example of why I should always record the event myself instead of believing people who say they'll get it to me within days.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .