Re: Chainpoint Community Group Announcement

from previous experiences, groups(including CG, IG and WG) are very
difficult to produce common governance rules specially for registry.

this is one of the points CG can discuss.
2016년 9월 21일 (수) 18:48, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co>님이
작성:

> Hi Mountie,
>
> > could you switch document mode you attached
> > to allowing comments?
> Done! Sorry it was not allowed by default.
> > how to cover or handle private chains?
> > many groups are trying to handle blockchain privately with reduced
> > difficulties.
> > even some private chains has very low trust than the public chains.
> > actually can not define it is blockchain.
> That is a question that needs to be first faced from the "group scope"
> perspective.
> There is an ongoing heated debate on whether it really does make sense
> to anchor data into a private blockchain.
> Either way, it would be possible by using a URI anchor type as Wayne
> just said—thanks for saving me the explanation ;)
> > who and how define chainID?
> The Community Group and eventually the Working Group should be in charge
> of defining them. "How" will depend on the governance model chosen by
> the group itself.
> > some groups are not trying to load data on OP_RETURN script to reduce
> > or postpone the tx fee to consumer side(meaning putting data on input
> > script).
> > who and how define anchor type?
> That's a really good point. OP_RETURN is not the only way to anchor data
> into the Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. OpenTimestamps).
> In the case of Ethereum, AFAIK,  there are at least two different
> methods as well.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo
> CTO, Stampery Inc.
> San Francisco - Madrid
> T: +34 663 163 375
>
>