/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>14598958

>>14598958
the token is unironically not needed

>>14599051

>>14599051

sir please tell me why token is needed

>>14599129
it isn't

>>14599156

>>14599156
cucked

Synonymous with "cuckolded." One whose wife has hadsexual relationswith another man (in modern use, often with thehusband'sapproval) has been cucked.

It's literally not needed.

>>14599916

It's not needed. If someone sends you a document from a government, institution or business directly it is official. If a third party sends you a document, and you question the authenticity, you verify with the issuer.

>>14600451
Someone explain this to me. How the fuck is this different from an MD5 hash?

Meme quality steadily improving

Token is payment and information in same transaction. Wow.

>>14600451
Here we have a retard unironically saying "just verify with eyes xd"

>>14601237
Anyone?

>>14601840

>>14601258
No it’s not. If he is floating like this, it would imply his head is fucking hollow you dumbass

>>14601849
MD5 has no marketing and probably the vidt is going to be more userfriendly?
Anyway, I have more interesting question- Why would we need VIDT when we already have Quant, whic offers the same function and already has x10 marketcap?
It's all look like a dotcom buble where 10000 of companies offered 10000 identical solutions.

The token is a vehicle for the file data. Even if a client pays with fiat, they are still using the token behind the curtains.

>>14598958
q3 t1 exchange is a myth, sorry. theyre a real company, yes, with real clients, yes, but you're investing in $1 cheeseburgers thinking when more people buy them you'll sell them for $10. they literalyl fucking readjust the cost of the token for their clients.

the absolute state.

>>14601237
MD5 is flawed (collisions). Hashing in general is user unfriendly and requires computer skills. VIDT is also networked and the results are available for others, whereas a hash needs to be computed and shared to achieve the same result

>>14600451
This is bad FUD, the company and the use of it to verify documents is legit. If you want to FUD anything it should be the value of the token

>>14602521
Not a believer yet but thank you for answering anon.

>>14600451
>sophisticated document fraud doesn't exist
>insider attacks don't occur
>employees (office toasties) need to know proper hashing algorithms and need to make sure the output matches
>documents with thousands of lines can be verified manually in a time efficient manner

Lol

>>14602589
No problem. I work in InfoSec so I understand why VIDT is attractive. For small scale file verification SHA-256 (or above) is excellent though. Very secure but not something normies would enjoy doing

>>14602810
don't know why you try, but I appreciate it. amazing how hard this FUD is coming lately

Why do Lit fags always lurk in our threads shilling their $35k volume turdlet

That $10mil+ daily Vidt volume

>>14600451
Alright luddite

Why did we need email when we had post? Why did we even need post when we had pigeon carriers

You're a dumb brainlet

Automated and guaranteed verification saves

>time - instant for user
>money - less time spent verifying documents for people via email or phone or whatever

>>14603653
Bro there is not a single mention of it in this thread except for you, you have a vitcim complex
bro

>>14603785
Just check the archives. They've not arrived yet