Not a big thing to say that a project that hasn't even launched..... is not finished yet. ;-)

I can't speak for anybody else, but I can tell you exactly why I bought into the ICO:

1. My first impression was that they are pretty good and really smart in marketing. While that can be a red flag if we think about shady projects it's a huge pro in serious and legit projects. Because it needs the ability to raise attention, not just to attract Investors but also Developers.

2. The team: Because I could not know if they are serious or shady I've read interviews and posts and then I was 100% sure that they are serious about this, that they will do all they can to make it successful. Of course, that doesn't say much about their abilities to do it, but in general my impression was and still is: It all is very thought out.

3. Regarding the tech: I'm not a tech guy but I think a lot about the natural conflicts between centralization and decentralization and my own theory is: It's not possible to be effective and totally decentralized at the same time. I believe that the best way is to have a decentralized core-Blockchain, simple and stable, but centralized applications that just anchor in the core chain. If you take Bitcoin for example: It's possible and not too hard to build on top of it. And many projects do that, like Factom for example which I know best. Multiple projects, some with their own blockchain and some without can do this without bloating the Bitcoin-Blockchain but securing itself in it, benefit from the huge security of the Bitcoin-Blockchain. The thing about it is: Some of those projects can fail, some can succeed, it won't ever hurt the Core. And: The economy stays decentralized because it's not just one economy. Ethereum does it the other way around. It's all on the blockchain, the tech can mess up because in my eyes it's overcomplex, it's one big economy and with the PoS-model they will switch to, I believe that even if the tech should work, the economy will lead into a centralizing effect. That's why I prefer projects that keep it simple at the core while making it possible to grow beyond itself.

Regarding node.js: I've asked a friend of mine who is a skilled Dev and under the line he said nearly exactly what Max said in this reply: http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2104/how-does-lisk-differ-from-ethereum/3176#3176

That it's all about how skilled they are with it. My hope is that they will hire more good Devs and then: If the core will be stable I don't see much reason to believe this project will fail. Dapps can fail in many ways but that won't hurt the potential of Lisk.

4. Crypti: I didn't even know about it. But while the fork is something that was criticized a lot I see a huge pro in it. The reason is simple: Crypti obviously worked well regarding the tech. At least I don't have other informations. It was just totally under the radar and the best projects will die without attention. So I also see a pro in the strategy to do exactly that (marketing) better with Lisk and obviously they know how to do it.

5. Usecases: Will Lisk be a project for the big companies, like banks and so on? I don't expect that. But if we think about the gaming sector, just for example, it can be big business and big money. And there are a lot of other use cases that have the potential to be part of a growing "Lisk-economy". It will be all about attracting Developers.

6. Conclusion: Is Lisk a safe bet? No. There is not a single project that is safe. We are in a high-risk-market. But if the core will be stable, if they attract and/or hire skilled Developers, I believe to see a lot of potential. And while it may be the complexity that could kill other projects, the simplicity of Lisk could turn out as big strength. That's really the main-reason why I bought into the ICO.

Not sure if we will see 1 Billion soon but Factom is the one project in crypto with serious partnerships and already a little explosion in it's use (the last 500k entries in less than one month, more than all 5 months before):

Latest Usage Statistics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RUZLxxoAfT3C5jIJ144DLYdztYe_sqrKqbTlZuD05-s/edit#gid=445871101

Take a look at Factom. They are leading in providing proof of existing, - process, - audit.

Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.0
HP: https://www.factom.com


Factom is able to handle mountains of data and anchors in other Blockchains (Bitcoin first of course) to secure and proof itself. In my eyes a nearly perfect solution to be stable as a rock and very flexible and scalable at the same time.

Maybe you'll find a solution that is similar to Factom's design or maybe it would make sense to use Factom for Lisk-Dapp's, maybe even some kind of partnership would be possible. They partnered with a lot of Crypto-projects and also exchanges (Poloniex for example records data into Factom).

Current usage statistics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RUZLxxoAfT3C5jIJ144DLYdztYe_sqrKqbTlZuD05-s/edit#gid=445871101

Well done!

This...

"Since Ethereum is running contracts on the blockchain and Lisk is sort of running Dapp on the blockchain (sidechain?), you could see why having a weakly typed language could result in problems, specifically regarding consensus. It is much better to know the problem before it turns into an immutable thing on the chain, rather than discover all funds are trapped, or you fork the blockchain the first time someone tries to interact with it."

...could turn out as a (very) weak point with Ethereum. Because all ETH-contracts are running on the Blockchain while Lisk will use Sidechains. That's the most important point in my opinion and the reason why I don't invest in Ethereum but bought into the Lisk-ICO. It's the complexity of Ethereum that I consider as problematic and it's the base-simplicity of Lisk that could turn out as much more stable and scaleable.

Interesting read about Ethereum and possible coming problems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.0

This...

"Since Ethereum is running contracts on the blockchain and Lisk is sort of running Dapp on the blockchain (sidechain?), you could see why having a weakly typed language could result in problems, specifically regarding consensus. It is much better to know the problem before it turns into an immutable thing on the chain, rather than discover all funds are trapped, or you fork the blockchain the first time someone tries to interact with it."

...could turn out as a (very) weak point with Ethereum. Because all ETH-contracts are running on the Blockchain while Lisk will use Sidechains. That's the most important point in my opinion and the reason why I don't invest in Ethereum but bought into the Lisk-ICO. It's the complexity of Ethereum that I consider as problematic and it's the base-simplicity of Lisk that could turn out as much more stable and scaleable.

Interesting read about Ethereum and possible coming problems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361602.0

I believe it will be more. Because if we think about possibilities and probabilities, it's very likely that those who already use the system won't use it less but more  in future. And the "chinese market" for example (and whatever that exactly is) started with about 2k Entries 10 days ago and is now at nearly 8k per day. It's also very likely that there is still a lot of customer-testing going on and the real mountains of data will flow after Milestone 3.

Plus, even more important: We can expect that in the next months there will be more new partnerships/customers/user than in the last months.  Factom doesn't have even really started yet. Factom is also about the network-effect. I believe that's highly underestimated and my prediction is: The network effect will play a huge role in more than just one aspect. The more Factom is used the more it will be known and the more attention it will get and the more convincing it will be to potential customers. And the more it's used the more sense it will make for others to use - not just to record data but also to connect data.


And what I think is really interesting because I always focus on that: If we think about how the team communicates, I think we all agree that they are known not-to-hype. I mean, there is even some complaining about it that they don't care about making marketing for Factoids. And it's obvious that they don't even speak about some of the customers, maybe because they can't speak about it. That, in combination with these little hints ("we will surprise people") and predictions ("I am predicting many Entry Credits will be used").... does not say what exactly they know but I would make any bet that they wouldn't ever say such things without knowing "something". I mean, there are even signs that Honduras is back on the table.

So, I believe the situation is even better than expected and my expectations were already high since Factom got my attention and I began to understand it.

Oh, wow! That's much more/better than expected - at least I did not expect such a growth that quickly/fast. It's not even a month back (March 24) that they've announced 500k entries --> 100% growth in less than 30 days and the bigger Customers have just started.

Kind of funny is that there is not much (or even nothing?) to find about a partnership with Enron.

Intrinio has Factom on their site: https://home.intrinio.com/thirdparty/

...but it's also not that I remember Factom would have announced it. Maybe it's some of the stuff they can't talk about.


But I remember this:

"(...) but I think the protocol is going to surprise people (...) We are delivering and that delivery is going to shock people" (Paul Snow: https://youtu.be/1noFK6M8ktU?t=1h6m19s)

The whole interview is one of the best with Paul Snow by the way.


And just yesterday:



Conclusion: More than just promises. They deliver!
Funny conclusion: The "surprise-factor" shouldn't be underestimated. They obviously have more good news than they (can?) talk about.

;-)

Exactly. If Bitcoin should shoot up, Alts will go down a bit - but then, at least high-volume-projects will fly even higher.

Very interesting (also about Honduras!):


Coinprism and Factom Present at Coinsilium London Blockchain Tech Lab

(...)

In the afternoon Factom, led by CEO Peter Kirby, described the working and intentions behind providing an unalterable record keeping system. Fundamentally, Kirby declared, Factom lets people prove data bits that have been recorded have not been altered since they were entered to Factom. Factom is a data layer that sits on top of the bitcoin blockchain and links into other prominent blockchains, such as Ethereum, and can publish hashes to provide unalterable and irremovable proof of existence.

Another issue that Factom is trying to solve is the problem of scalability, not only with carrying out a large number of transactions but also with locating specific data within the multitude of blocks. To achieve this and other goals, Factom are releasing different solutions, such as Factom Iris and Factom Hera. Iris gives the ability to build chains of data, allowing users to find data, and also allows users to comply with KYC, with identities able to be tracked over time. Kirby described that the next steps in this area was to allow the synchronising of multiple devices on one system of authority. In the future having sensors for devices which could automatically register data, whether pictures or records, instantly on Factom to provide immutable facts as and when they happen was noted as being a desirable achievement. On the other hand, Factom Hera is being designed as a private blockchain tool for massive scaling, on an Internet of Things city scale.

Next was a look at some use cases with Factom Apollo, a real-time auditing and verification tool which has been used to improve areas such as mortgage transfer. Here Kirby also confirmed that the Honduras project, where Factom aims to secure land title records, had progressed further after the project had been reported as being delayed at the end of last year. Currently being trialled in a few cities, it is hoped that it will be completed this year.

The choices behind some of Factom’s funding decisions were also explained. By using factoids as a cryptocurrency to purchase credits, Factom hopes to remove the desire for hackers and attacks to target them as, when converted into entry credits, there is no ability to exchange credits back to factoids or other Cryptocurrency. The only benefit a hacker would gain would be the ability to write on Factom, not monetary gain. The decision to require payment before writing was also taken to reduce the chance of people submitting spam or carrying out DDOS attacks.

Overall, the Blockchain Tech Lab had an overwhelmingly positive outlook for blockchain technology and attendees were excited to find out the many possibilities that were available and being developed.
http://allcoinsnews.com/2016/04/16/coinprism-and-factom-present-at-coinsilium-london-blockchain-tech-lab/

This video is not really about Factom but about Ethereum and it's really interesting:

Costs vs. Benefits: My Experience with an Ethereum Smart Contract
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_90Y8mw_HVY

...but I think there is a funny combination: After explaining the experience with Ethereum, that was not really good, there comes Factom-advertising (at 5:03). And they're obviously convinced about Factom! ;-)

Yes, I mean the wallet. What I exactly mean is this: After buying into the ICO user downloaded the passphrase. And if there should be for example a trojan on a system the passphrase is in other hands at the same time. I personally didn't download it, I wrote it on paper. But I logged in with it, and if I would have a keylogger on my system it also would be in other hands. I don't believe that, there is no sign that my system is corrupted. I mean it more in general.

And those who are not sure about their system could make it more secure before launch if there would be a way to do it. But if it's not possible I accept your answer.

My thought about it is mainly the security before launch. I believe I'm safe, but nothing is ever totally safe and with more than 4000 participants there will be some passphrases that are not safe any more because of malware (trojans, keylogger on systems) etc.  I believe it would be good, if there would be a way to make it more secure before launch. The BIP38 solution is good but it will be not available until launch - which could theoretically be to late.

@Max, would it be possible to add 2FA to https://login.lisk.io?

Great Video:


Factom - Big Data on the Bitcoin Blockchain - BnkToTheFuture Case Study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNv45gw44Wg

Could make sense, at least for some possible Lisk-Dapps. In general Factom seems to be very open for partnerships in the Cryptospace and there are already some, like Storj and Poloniex for example and some others.

Important is: Factom is not tied to or dependent of any Blockchain. They are able and will anchor in multiple Blockchains and they've already announced that they will also anchor in Ethereums Blockchain. It just has to make sense out of the extra-security-aspect. So, if the Lisk-Blockchain should fulfill that it's possible. But Lisk is, like Factom, a limited blockchain and there are some similarities between the Lisk and the Factom- design - what I like, because I believe it needs simplicity for stability.

In general, the reason why I believe that Factom is such a great project is not just because of it's base-idea. That is pretty simple. And of course, I believe it can theoretically be done with a Lisk-Dapp - not sure about that but it should be possible. But the thing about Factom is that it's so elegant and thoughtful. They have solutions for every little aspect, they have a great and very dedicated team, they have marketing, they have relationships, they are definitely not focused on the FCT-market price but on real deals, and so on. With other words: It's not just about the question if other projects could theoretically do what Factom does, but about the question if any project will be as good in that as Factom. And Factom is also about a network-effect. The more customers they have the more sense will it make for others to use Factom as well, not just to record data but also to connect it. And in that aspect, the business-side, Factom is much better than it is visible at the moment. They already have deals but more interesting is about what they can't talk about currently.

Some words about Lisk: Some of the qualities I see in Factom I believe to see in Lisk as well. My decision to invest in the Lisk-ICO was based on mainly two reasons: I believe in the base-design, because (like I've said) I believe in simplicity and regarding blockchains that means a stable Core plus Sidechains. And I figured that the Lisk-Guys are very good in marketing, very dedicated and diligent and serious about this project. So, there is nothing to say against Lisk and I believe that it's possible that Lisk will have a higher marketcap than Factom soon. But in longterm, Factom will still be my Number 1 (before Bitcoin). That could change over time if Lisk should turn out as a huge success. At the moment that's still uncertain, which is normal. Lisk has not even launched and the team needs to grow. That will be an important aspect, also when it comes to the question if Lisk has chances against Ethereum. In the end, if there is a good idea, and I believe that Lisk has a great vision, it will be all about the team.

I've never said Lisk would beat ETH. The reason not to add ETH is simple: Because it's much higher, what I wanted to show is not as visible. And why not add Bitcoin - you'll see that ETH is still a dwarf against it. What I wanted to say, and that's still impressive: There are good reasons to believe that Lisk will start or be soon in the Top10.

And for me as somebody who is highly invested in Factom it's surprising to see Lisk that much above when it comes to public attention. Does that mean I would like to swap my FCT's for Lisk? No way! In my eyes Factom is the best project in the market and attention is not everything. That's also true regarding Ethereum. I bought into the Lisk-ICO because of the sidechain-design. I like it simple and smart. I don't believe that over-complex systems has a chance in longterm and that's the reason why I don't buy ETH. I believe to see some signs for huge setbacks out of it's complexity.

What I try to say with this: Yes, Ethereum has a lot more attention than Lisk and I don't believe that Lisk will come even near to that in the next 12 months. But if I should make a decision, based on the assumption I would have to buy a project now, but would not be allowed to sell it the next 5 years, my first decision would be Factom. Second Bitcoin. Lisk will show the next time/months what we can expect. ETH will also show and I believe it's highly overvalued and that it will come back.