Quote from: BTCetera on August 18, 2017, 04:25:50 PM

Quote from: ChronoLogic on August 18, 2017, 01:20:30 PM

Quote from: BTCetera on August 18, 2017, 03:34:08 AM

Quote from: drwoo on August 18, 2017, 03:25:24 AM

Quote from: BTCetera on August 18, 2017, 03:15:03 AM

Quote from: BTCetera on August 16, 2017, 10:20:55 PM

Why would someone use chronologic when there is opentimestamps.org? Thx.

This is actually a very valid question. Would anyone from the team mind answering it?

That was my 2nd attempt at an answer...

This is simply not comparable, and not the same project, you are welcome to come in our slack tho, if you really seek more infos, and deeper answers on questions like that.

That is a very simplistic answer to a not simple question. Why don't you start by showing how they are different instead of telling us to seek answers elsewhere?

You'd expect the Chronologic team to be ready to defend their coin, instead of telling ppl to go seek answers elsewhere. At this point I have no desire to join your slack. I will ask Peter Todd for this answer and post it here.

Slack is the best place to get detailed technical answers as the developpers are made available there.

I will however try to give you a better answer:

Opentimestamps is proof of existence concept, it's a record keeping system.

Proof of time is a minting concept, where the tokens are self generating without the need for staking or mining. ChronoLogic's focus is also on real use cases where the smart contract guarantees that any promises made requiring the use of time are honored. This is particularly useful for debt securities which the team is trying to implement and has already been in discussion with partners toward that purpose.