@junseth Wow! You guys are pieces of work.
I'm going to jump in here, and just say one thing so as to correct the record. First off, Chris is right 100%. You can disagree with him. But you'll probably be embarrassed not so long from now.
Why don't you go through my review of his "timeline", and tell me how any of the errors I identified are not actually errors? And then go through the list of additional milestones I gave that Chris ignored, and tell me how they are not relevant to a reader trying to understand the Factom project?
But I wanted to very simply point out that the Honduras announcement came on the last day of the fundraise I am fairly certain.
The token sale ended on May 15 at 10 am CST. I don't know what time on May 15 the article came out, but the overlap was pretty small. There was no decernable impact on the token sale. Addirionally, it was not supposed to be released until the following week.
But you know all of this.
But even if it didn't (which I'm pretty sure it did) Paul, you and your Factom-ers did 2 more fundraises under the auspices that the Honduras deal was signed and sealed.
No we did not. There is no reference (even in that announcement) of a signed and sealed deal. The anouncement clearly states that "The pilot project should be completed by the end of the year, with the goal of eventually putting all of the government's land titles on the blockchain"
Projects that first do "pilot projects" are by definition provisional. It is the first step to ensure that the tech works. Secondly, words like "should" embody less than 100% certainty. At this point, there is no way a pilot project will be completed before the second quarter of next year.
Here is the article if you need to refresh your memory
Also note that your 100% friend said "Somehow, around this point Abhi Dobhal's company "Epigraph" becomes the actual consulting company that Factom takes credit for being. (and for telling its fundraisers, it will be)". I think the implication is that we represented ourselves as doing this project alone, and taking credit for someone else's tech. Then months later (hard to say, how long he is implying, as he has no dates in his "timeline") we reveal Epigraph's role. Well, your supposed "100 percent correct" friend must not have read the announcement, which states:
- "The company is doing the project with Epigraph, a title software company that uses blockchain technology, also based in Austin."
You seem to operate with a different understanding of the meaning of "right 100%" than most of us. How many blatant, uncorrected errors can Chris make and remain "right 100%"?
I'd expect you two to at least correct the most blatant errors, if your complaint is that Factom isn't honest.
Your explanation for the lies are that not everyone is perfect and you can't expect not to bungle press. But blatant lies are blatant lies. And those aren't bungles, they were deliberately misleading statements that the kind people of LTB are letting you off the hook with because they're likely bag hodlers and beliebers.
Do you have a statement from Honduras that refutes the existence of the negotiations for the project? When we did make a error about DBS, we were wrong. And DBS issued a statement as well to that effect. If there is no project, why wouldn't Honduras issue a statement?
Moreover, to call factom coins a license is ridiculous considering the issuer (your company) has to buy them to use your software. The hilarity that is the notion of you having to enter into a contractual relationship with yourself in order to use your software is absurd on its face. So good luck with that.
I can't even parse your complaint here. All blockchains require transactions to follow their rules. We are building blockchain tech here. There are no contracts... You do have a token though that acts as a license to use the protocol.
As to Chris's actions reflecting on the Counterparty foundation, I don't think that he or I care at all what you think about our actions. That said, if you come around on Chris's points, you probably will need to come to grips with the possibility that the job of a "Community Director" is to protect members of the community from exigent problems. Factom doesn't pose a threat to counterparty, but it does threaten the integrity of the other so-called decentralized products in the space. And, frankly, when it falls, Counterparty will continue its reputation as having a community that keeps out obvious scammers. We can't keep a perfectly clean nose, but I'm pretty sure that the Counterparty project has done as good a job as can be expected.
So.... You do view your actions and those of Chris in attacking Factom as a Counterparty project action? Not just something you are doing personally?
That's kind of interesting.
