Bitcoin Forum

Please read this entire post, prior to voting!

---

This is a good enough place as any to address the current discussion over at the Bitcoin100 thread, starting with post #364: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543.0

The folks over at archive.org (http://www.archive.org) have been kind enough to include a Bitcoin donation option onto their website, albeit locating it here http://www.archive.org/donate/?donate=Donate&n=5 would better serve Bitcoin as a whole.

That said, after reading the relative posts over at the Bitcoin100 thread, do you feel that the funds currently residing in the first wallet should be donated to archive.org (http://www.archive.org) provided, of course, a couple simple provisos are met?

Personally, I can go either way on this issue. The main horse I have in this race is that a consensus is reached, with minimal supporters sore, hence this poll.

I feel that having this poll open for no less than 48 hours and, hopefully, no less than 100 votes cast, should give Bitcoin100 the direction needed to resolve this pending issue.

The poll is set for 1 maximum vote per user and will show the most current results after your vote is cast. I did not set a running time, purposely leaving that option blank, thereby not having a 48 hour voting period written in stone.

Feel free to use this thread to discuss this issue, thereby having a little less clutter over at the Bitcoin100 thread.

Thank you.

~Bruno~

What is to stop non-Bitcoin100 members from voting?

nothing. They can vote if they want. Maybe they will join the bitcoin100 after voting?

None! I personally feel that non supporters of Bitcoin100 have a vital roll in this issue, for what results out of there directly, and indirectly, effects Bitcoin as a whole.


Exactly! Moreover, not a single Bitcoiner shall ever called out is choosing to not supporting Bitcoin100.

Call me crazy, but I have qualms with someone outside the group giving their cognitive input when they haven't committed to giving monetary input.

First point is valid.

2nd point...what?

That's a damn good point! My hope, and thinking, is that with enough votes, mathematically this concern would be worked out in the equation. Does what I'm trying to say, make any sense (not directed toward you, the joint)?

Allow me to clarify that 2nd point. Over at the Bitcoin100 thread, there have been posts by users currently not supporters of Bitcoin100. Their questions and concerns are important to not only Bitcoin100 but, moreover, Bitcoin as a whole. A member of this forum, who doesn't post very often, may log in one day, read, make a very important comment, and leave, not returning back to Bitcoin Talk for a couple weeks. We can't simply ignore their post because they're not a supporter unless, that is, they're related to BitcoinPorn.  ;)

I hope that makes sense, as well. I'm trying to articulate what's going on inside my head and, at the same time, address this issue with the utmost care.

~Bruno~

Bruno,

That's fine.  You're addressing it well.  I appreciate the consideration you show towards others.

They seem to be doing ok without the bitcoin100:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r

Though I'm personally willing to have them as the first charity - I think when they see how much they have already taken they may be inclined to make the bitcoin information more prominent.

I won't put my input into the poll, as I haven't committed an amount to the Bitcoin100 (though I'm following and donating to some of the listed charities as I see fit)

It seems to me that while archive.org is a worthy cause (I've thrown them a small donation) they're not exactly a 'charity' are they?
I think it'd be better to preserve the bulk of the funds for causes which are more likely to be of wider appeal.

I'll give at least 1BTC to Médecins Sans Frontières if/when they put up a bitcoin address.

Wow, I hope someone there is checking the balance.  Thats a good bit of bitcoins in a short amount of time.  Nice to see the community supporting this.

What the hell! Whoever is orchestrating that drive, I want them to come over to the Bitcoin100 camp. That is awesome! Do you folks realize how impressive that looks. One look at that by other charitable organizations, and we won't need Bitcoin100.


Thank you for those kind words, the joint. I always try to be considerate, but there have been a small handful of times I've shown my ass. All in all, your comment is on point. Thank you, again.

I have a feeling that the Bitcoin 100 has done a good job of promoting archive.org by just publicly discussing the fact that they now accept bitcoin donations. This might be another "carrot" for potential recipients of the Bitcoin 100's pledge - a viral boost from the BTC community.

Actually bitcoin is on their donation page - there is a link at the bottom.

http://www.archive.org/donate/index.php

Yes, but what I'm saying is, how many know about that link as a direct result of it being mentioned in the Bitcoin 100 threads on this forum?

If they will move the Bitcoin donation choice right up there next to above PayPal and make it a button just like the stupid PayPal button I will personally donate 10 more BTC directly to them and I would vote that we dontate the full 100 BTC to them once this is done.

Sounds fair.

Further discussion, please.

I agree 100% with bwagner. I'm very much against donating the wallet at this time, but if they change the location of the donation link, I would be okay with this. I also have a separate pledge for the archive which I'm currently holding but will honor if they change the link location, and my donation amount will also be bigger. That would be a sign that they really care about Bitcoin so I'm happy to reward for that.

I pretty much agree with Technomage and BWagner.
I'm not ok with such a small and obscure link at the very bottom of the page, not by a long shot.

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: I voted Yes - I have no doubt that archive.org deserves our support, we just need to make sure a minor webpage update is bundled in with the donation ^^

I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. This is true for down the road, also, regarding the future releasing of funded wallets. I will only become voicetress if I discover something nefarious pertaining to any charitable organization that supporters of Bitcoin100 are about to fund.

I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.

A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.

Here's what I propose. We reach out to June over at archive.org and lay our cards on the table, so to speak. We explain our dilemma to her and, perhaps, she'll offer up a kind solution. The folks over there seem to be very straight up with what they're doing, and I'm sure they fully understand what's in play here. We can provide her the links to the relative threads here on this forum for starters, then be very upfront with her. Hold nothing back. My guess is that after a quick exchange of emails, this issue should be resolved.

Thoughts?

~Bruno~

 I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to its guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.

  I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'.  Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?

Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.


   Cheers,
    Derek

No, i never used it.

Possibly seen on a future charitable organization's donation page:

By choosing Bitcoin as a donation option, we incur no transfer fees, therefore 100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).

You mean "You could have at least spelled ONE word incorrectly." :)
If it's any consolation, FF's spellchecker doesn't agree that "incentivize" and "counterintuitive" are words. It's wrong, of course.

As long as we're on a grammar tangent... I have for some time wanted to set up a webpage correcting some commonly misspelled words like "definitely", "lose", "its", "they're", "would have", etc. I figured I would give people the option to donate for my efforts using PayPal. But the likely donations would be small and PayPal's fixed fee would eat them all up. So I invented the concept of "randomized donations" which allows donating any given amount on average with much less transaction fees (at the cost of higher variance). But now with Bitcoin this is all moot, and I know a lot more now about setting up webpages, so I should probably go ahead with that...

Sure, sounds good.

Why go half-way? "All your donation are belong to us".

As seen on their FAQ page:

Nice caught!  ;D

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

I like the slogan!

Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!

Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.

"Donation". Say it right.

And I think "to us" is both more fitting and more true to the source.
Edit: The other way around. Should be "All Our Donation are Belong to You!".

Reminds me of The Oatmeal's Twitter Spelling Test Quiz (http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/twitter_spell).

I got "Look at the temperature Gage" wrong! So I emailed them and asked why.

I'm getting tired, hence the 's' error.

As far as the slogan goes (no, it's not going anywhere, but...), I envisioned it directed at the potential charitable organizations, emphasizing that everybody who donates Bitcoin to them, they receive 100% of those funds--no transfer fees. BTW, that slogan I came up with is just an idea, and no way am I trying to push that we use it, though it can be considered a talking point (do points talk?).

I'm tired and starting to type stupid. Consider this my last post of the night, unless I post another one.

~Bruno~

Voted "no". They already received over 250 bitcoin. At this point 100 bitcoin is less impressive, because the 250 in a week was impressive enough as it is.
Apart from that, I think bitcoin100 is more of a "x in need" kind of charity support, although I guess we could branch out to whatever we fancy.

Exactly. "All our donation (the donations collected through us, the Bitcoin100) are belong to you (the charity who keeps 100%)".

That can be used as a litmus test for choosing charities. If it crosses our minds to approach an organization with this slogan, it's probably not the kind of charity we are looking for.

archive.org's "Every bit helps" is nice too. "Bitcoin donations: Every bit helps. With bitcoin you can donate amounts as small as a cent, without any middle man profiting from your gift."

By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option, we incur no transfer fees. Therefore 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping the spirit of giving going to those in need.

Voted "no". I would suggest using this wallet to guaranteed 100 BTC fund in the first week after a charity start accepting Bitcoin.

We should restart this vote now that archive.org decided to change the position of the Bitcoin donation link. This changes things in my mind.

A million times yes.  Archive.org is the perfect foundation to use as a focus for the Bitcoin100.  No better start than a site that does nothing more than ensure we cannot forget or change history.   I vote my first pledge goes to Archive.org.

If you gave bitcoin, everything went to them. If you used a different option they supplied, like the justgive.org thing, then it takes a fee.
They got all the bitcoin.

This to me is all the more reason why they should be chosen as the first place to donate Bitcoin.  They are huge.  They don't need any extra incentive or what not.  We aren't here to promote them though, we are here to promote Bitcoin.    

It works on so many levels too, you have the actual Archive.org staff who will not be checking shit out, the general web users of Archive.org, which I would say if you are using that site in the first place, most likely you know how to use a computer.  That site doesn't come up on an AOL front page, that site is for people who are on their computers and have some kind of use where they got to the point of using Archive.org.  Their backing is the backing of smarter users.

Now I know this does not please scammers and people who are into Bitcoin for a quick buck, but for all you people who want Bitcoin to succeed in the long run, having Bitcoin incorporated and accepted as a regular part of Archive.org screams legitimacy.   For every person saying "uh.. that internet money is just used to buy drugs" will now have another bigger site to point to saying they use it to.   I think I may be misunderstanding something, but I see only big positives if the majority were to vote for Archive.org as the first to kick start this donation thing.  

Could an admin/moderator restart the poll so we don't have to wait until Phinnaeus comes back? We need to get a decision done asap that reflects the current situation.

Yes, cause I thought I've noticed a couple of people saying they changed their vote, and this is pretty damn close.   But then everyone would have to be alerted to re-vote if they did so already.  Or start a new poll.  I think this is how those elections got fucked up when Bush was put in office or something lol

We can wait until the amount of votes is similar to what it is now. But it will be done faster the sooner we have a new vote.

This public vote is a scam!   Only people in the Bitcoin100 can vote.  So that means Gage has to send a PM to each member asking for their response.  And at that time he can include the message that from now on, if they want to be in any votes, they have to keep an eye on the main Bitcoin100 thread, so he doesn't have to spam everyone again lol

Well hopefully all users will keep in mind they put in a pledge for a purpose, and now approaching the first possible donation, we are able to see these little issues that need to be mended.  Growing pains, keep the faith, Gage will make good :)

Your realise that was a joke - no one has received a message etc.

Should we all have a vote based on the number of bitcoins we sent? Cos I sent 200. Since it's anonymous who knows who sent what anyway? And the vote isn't a binding agreement and it really doesn't matter for the sake of $3 (or $600 in my case).
I'm sure the people maintaining the wallet will happily refund you your bitcoin if you ask them. The people involved in this are not scammers and are not playing games.

There was no fine print - it's just a loose idea expressed on an internet discussion board between like minded(ish) people.
If you don't want to be involved then don't be involved - I think everyone who put their name forward, on the whole knew, that it wasn't clear how it would pan out or how it would work or how it would be organised. It was just the seed of an idea that we hoped would flourish into something interesting. And I personally have no doubts that it will grow into something that is worth supporting.

Yeah.. since they have yet to receive 100 anyway. It's called humour I believe.

http://blockexplorer.com/a/5Lz5WHd44p

EDIT - though just becasue I said I sent a bitcoin how do you know how many I sent? - maybe I didn't send any and just wanted the kudos and respect of my peers.

In an ideal world here is what I would like to see:

Button [Donate through JustGive.org] we only get 95.5%
Button [Donate through PayPal] we only get 95% (or whatever the real number is)
Button [Donate using Bitcoins] we get 100% of your donation!
OR Donate using Bitcoins to 17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r and we get 100% of your donation!

Having said that, I vote we now give them the 100 BTC and here is why.  My initial concern (that the Bitcoin donation was way down at the bottom where no one could see it) has been addressed.  They now have Bitcoins mentioned right there next to PayPal - what else could we ask for?  Anyone who actually has BTC to donate can now easily get their address.

What we want is publicity, right.  What better thing to be able to splash, tweet, etc. than "Archive.org got 445.04892494 Bitcoins, worth over $1300, in less than a week after simply adding Bitcoin to their donation options"

We can do this by adding our 100 to the 345.04892494 they already have.  So already having 345.04892494 donated only amplifies the effect of our 100 BTC - it does not diminish it.

We are all in this for the long haul and we have 99 more charities to go, right?

Finally, at the end of the day we are talking about just $312 $320 $319 here...

Let's get this one done and start on the next one.

Isha Vasya idam sarvam (respectfully)

They do have a good chunk of BTC in a very short amount of time without the extra 100, but they also moved the donation link up.  It's interesting to look over the sites in the wiki that accept bitcoin donations, and their publicly available donation amounts.  Placement of the donation option does seem to have an impact on the amounts received.  Either way I think it would be good to point out in any Bitcoin100 comunications that placement of the button or address is important.  I'm really in the middle on archive.org.

Precisely. We need organizations to embrace bitcoin and yet debate whether or not we should donate?
As a member of bitcoin100 I say just send them the darned coins.

I see someone has been reading the Energizer Bunny post.

Now that I've gotten the morning funnies out of my system, I'll proceed to address what needs addressing in posts here and at the Bitcoin100 thread.

Before I offer up my opinions on posts in this topic, I want to let you folks know that I've registered a new user name on this forum to solely use, more or less, for all things considered Bitcoin100. The user name is Bitcoin 100 (the space, irrelevant), of which I've formally requested to be whitelisted. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=47977


Bitcoin100 will most definitely fork off into different paths, but that's further down the road. Currently, a strong foundation is being laid, enabling us to travel on a smooth surface, thereby easily incorporating adjunct ventures if warranted.


Practically, most charity-type organizations are experiencing a 'dire straight' situation, in some form or another. Weighing their financial strength, or weakness, is only one part of determining which organization should be approached by Bitcoin100.


My slogan idea was just a brainfart at the time. Again, I was tired when I thought up the idea. It was something I was thinking of reading on some charitable organizations website, not the official Bitcoin100 website which, by the way, is in the works. More on this later. Any slogan, motto, etc., used in conjunction with Bitcoin100 will have as much strength as possible that can be mustered up, like the next quoted post points out.


Strong! Now we're getting somewhere. This, or a variant of, idea is so strong, consider it stolen.


As seen here http://www.archive.org/donate/index.php the best we should hope for is having a Bitcoin button with the same relative size, color, and font. But, on the left side of this page http://www.archive.org/web/web.php (scroll down a tad), you'll see their list of contributors. Bitcoin can easily be placed on this list depending on the criteria for them doing such.


@sadpandatech: I truly like what you wrote here, but why do I continue to trip over 'giving going' each time I read it? I'm not an expert grammarian, therefore it's either grammatically correct or needs addressing. My effin' head can't get wrapped around that wording. Please correct me if I'm in error. Again, I truly like the post, and in no way trying to be hypercritical here.


Regardless on what the final vote is this poll, it'll should only be used a bellwether in our determination, now that the situation has changed somewhat. We can easily use the poll results, coupled with the sentiment expressed here and the other thread, to resolve this issue.


Another great post!


What do you think about my bellwether idea, Technomage & BP?


I started the poll to help give us a direction in regard to the issue at hand. The idea in my mind, at the time, was leaning towards having the result determine our direction, but that my now prove futile since things have changed. My only regret upon reflecting back is that I didn't click the option of having one change there vote after they have voted. I tried my best to cover as many bases as possible with this approached, but see now that I've fouled.


Thank you, BP.

I am on record, over on the Bitcoin100 thread, for stating that if there is ever a misunderstanding, I would refund Bitcoin from my personal wallet, so that no funds are even removed from the donation wallet with the exception of it being transferred to a charitable organization.

Please forgive, Goat, for the misunderstanding, for I'm mostly to blame for this mix-up. Reason I take the blame is that I don't have a central location (the main thread's no longer cutting it) in place, as of yet, where one can easily go to and see exactly what is currently transpiring.


But if I would have had a central location for one to go to, there would have been less confusion, to date.


The original idea consist of no less than 100 charitable organizations. I truly envision this project, in its current state, taking flight and soaring until it's no longer needed, whereupon afterwards Bitcoin100 will concentrate on other charitable fronts. But that's further down the road, as I've previously stated.

I like your tweet idea, for tweets like that will surely written. https://twitter.com/#!/Bitcoin100


Earlier in this post, I mention creating a button that looks like the PayPal on archive.org's donation page. I believe we don't have to do that because that part of their CMS makeup. All they have to do is create the button with CSS and word it with Bitcoin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~~~

This conclude the addressing of posts sharing my opinions, here. Now I'm off to the other thread to see what awaits me there. Also, hopefully, the user name Bitcoin 100 has been whitelisted. But first, a fresh cup of coffee.

~Bruno~

Bruno, you have a point. We don't really need another poll to solve this, I think we can make the decision based on what we have. The poll already has more yes votes and at least my vote would change from no to yes if we did it again. And the whole community, not only Bitcoin100, seems to be really impressed with what the Internet Archive did. I don't think anybody will be pissed if the first wallet is allocated to them. Not only are they interested in Bitcoin, the service they provide is a good cause.

But I think that after this we should really start focusing on contacting organizations. I know we don't even have full 100 members yet, but we are close, and the amount of BTC in total is already over 100 I think. Doesn't mean we should quit recruiting more members to this effort, but we should go forward with our plans to contact charities.

After some consideration, I think I would change my vote to a yes as well. How about we just let those who pledged/donated say if they want their portion to go? We don't have to donate an even 100 amount, this time, do we? I am also a tad concerned that some of the people who donated 10BTC may have wanted this to go to an actual charity. Honestly I have never even heard of Archive.org until yesterday. But they have voluntarily jumped through lots of hoops to do what they did.

I've mention earlier, reaching out to June at archive.org and laying our position totally on the line. The last thing we would want from them is WTF. I'm sure that they're overwhelm with the response, to date, that has transpired in such a short period of time. She just may say to us to let the current funded wallet go to a more worthy organization as their goodwill effort to funding a needy charity. We don't know till we ask. That said, who here has been in contact with June? (sorry for not researching this myself, but tryin' to get caught up here)

Oh, hey, another idea! Let them know what we are up to and what's going on, and see if, instead of receiving the Bitcoin100 donation, they would be willing to "pay it forward" and use one of their own new BTC they got from their huge windfall to be part of the Bitcoin100 themselves, donating 1 BTC to whatever charity we pick next?

I had to read this several times to figure out what you're idea consist of. Let me see if I figured it out correctly.

Instead of them accepting the funds from the current wallet, the funds are put into another wallet in their name, in which is controlled by Bitcoin100, taking from that newly created wallet only 1 BTC as seed money for each subsequent pool. It's done in their name of which will be on the contributor's list.

If I am correct, I'll match 1 BTC to their 1 BTC each time a new pool is created. Now, if we had one more person pledge the same match under these conditions, thus sweetening the pot, we may have a wiener.

How close are we to resolving this issue, now?

The way I understood your idea, coupled with the way I restated it, would not only work, but it may not even be necessary to ask them if that's okay. We simply fully tell tell them what transpired and how we handled it. It's not like they're waiting for the current funded wallet to be donated to them, even if they're aware of its existence. I'm not trying to hide anything from them, either, with that statement.

I live by the old adage, 'there's always a solution'.

Thoughts?

~Bruno~

It's getting a bit complicated for my taste but if they are interested in something like that, then go for it. I'm okay with any decision. Do nothing, donate the whole wallet, try that... it's all okay.

But one more thing, before you actually send the bitcoins, if you send them, do remember to PM everyone who hasn't honored their pledge on the Bitcoin100 and wait a while. Not everyone has honored their pledge yet and we need to give people some time to send the money if we are actually using the wallet.

I think the opinion is leaning towards yes. I myself am in the middle, but won't mind either way.

Explaining the situation to June… it depends on how "casual" the conversations with June are, in general. It may seem a bit strange. Or not. Can't really judge.

Great! That's what I wrote it for :) The "Every bit helps" is the core, I think. The words around it could maybe be improved upon.

Suggestion: Remove the "going" (Also some slight rewording):
By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option we incur no transfer fees, 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping the spirit of giving to those in need.

Almost perfect, m8.  I agree, though the 'giving going' is grammatically acceptable it brings pause to the reader while they try and figure it out. I like your version but think it may need to add;

 By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option we incur no transfer fees, 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping in the spirit of giving to those in need.


One of the more informed English speakers my be able to give better input than I, however.

Edit; My cheap grammar app suggests we also change the 'is received' from passive voice. Though I think that is really only fitting when you have 'subject,object' and may not apply here. If so then I suggest,

 By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option we incur no transfer fees, 100% of your donation we recieve in kind, keeping in the spirit of giving to those in need.


  Whatcha think?

WOW! Effin' tight!


All those who have pledge to date, hopefully did so with the understanding that they're under no obligation to donate to any particular cause. The pledging process is just a way to build a supporter list. As I've previous stated, as the list grows, the funding of the wallets will take care of itself. The initial goal was to have at least 100 BTC in any given wallet when the time arrives to transfer the funds to a willing charitable organization, regardless if not all members have honored their pledges or not. The notification process, e.g., a PM, comes into play when a charitable organization is about to be approached with our kind proposal and we need to make sure that the minimum amount we've set (at least 100 BTC) is available if they agree to our generous offer. Also, if we're so close, I may jump in and donate a small difference so that the 100 BTC is immediately made available for transfer, thus standing by our word.

Here's how it would work in real life:

A wallet currently has only 91 BTC in it. A charitable organization has been approached with our idea. At the same time, supporters have been made aware of this and are asked to honor their pledges. The CO gets back in touch with us stating their game. They did exactly what we desire and now it's time to transfer no less than 100 BTC from our wallet to their's. But we don't have the full amount. We're currently short. We can't afford to tell them to wait for the rest after saying what we're going to do, then don't do it. That's where I step in. I see we're 9 BTC short. I donate that 9 BTC. BAM! We're there. Transfers the funds, Rassah (or Roger Ver, if out of pocket). A new pool is started using the same wallet address and already seeded with 1 BTC from archive.org's wallet, which we control, plus 1 BTC from me, plus several others within the first hour of the starting of the new pool.

If this current wallet was needed for transfer now, it still lacks 9 BTC. Well, it did lack 9 BTC, until I stepped in. It's at 100 BTC now, available for transfer, thereby holding up our end of the bargain. Take a look: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac

~Bruno~

PS: I consider doing all this as fun. But I believe that theymos tricked me into creating Bitcoin100 so that I would have something else to do besides posting images all over his damn forum.  ;D Have I also mentioned lately that I miss Nikki the Bitch?  ;D

awesome management Phinnaeus Gage you really got the ball rolling  :D

Regarding the archive.org, i'm still a little confused by all the events. CoinLab posted the link to a thread announcing archive.org already taking bitcoin donations after some member of our forum had posted comments on their blog regarding bitcoin. Seems like it caught their attention. I may be obvious on this but not even one Bitcoin100 pledger or spokesman had something to do with them doing that. We didn't see any emails made public either.
I think we should get some real work done on charities less wiling to accept bitcoin donations, not taking any credit in the process on those we didn't do nothing.

I agree that we should be using these stacked wallets as a dangling carrot for groups to begin accepting bitcoin, but I am rather indifferent to where this first one goes. I think Phinnaeus started a good thing, and it'll keep chugging along as more people discover it. Archive.org is already raking it in at a decent clip. It'll be great to point at them and say, "Look how well it's working for them!". Whether this first wallet goes to them or not, the point will be made.

Awesome management? Hell, I'm faking it as I go along! I'm just addressing issues with as much common sense I can muster up. The events leading up to the archive.org issue just happened to fall in place within the same time frame that Bitcoin100 was developing a footing. Then the two separate events merged. I can't wait till further down the road when an even more important issue arises, thereby taxing my negotiating skills. Either way, there's always a solution! Remember, I started this as a brainfart, but now enjoying the ride.

~Bruno~

I'm commenting on this thread to show off bring attention to my new user name with its spiffy avatar, and to vote opposite of what the user name Phinnaeus Gage voted, thereby remaining neutral as far as the polling is concerned. I'll be using this account primarily for Bitcoin100 related topics, but still use Phinnaeus Gage to piss off theymos for all other off topics.

Has anybody recontacted June, or should we proceed with my latest suggestion? All options are still open for discussion, for my idea's not written in stone, though it has some support.

~Bruno~

Has archive.org converted their batch of donations into fiat and, if so, where can one find that info on blockexplorer? The reason for asking is that it looks like the wallet address is starting anew. We would love to have a record of that amassing of funds in such a short period of time to show to future prospects (charitable organizations).

As near as we can tell they have not cashed in any of their BTC yet:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r (http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r)

They currently have 358.85734879 BTC.

My mistake! I must have clicked a different link of which I thought their address was addressed.

The different link was most likely the address with the bitcoinbrew fund. You know, the Coffee For Charity project :)

This is odd! The link I provided above, was the one I was in reference to. I had no other blockexplorer tab/page open, hence the concern, then post. Taxing my memory, it showed something like 2.xxxxxx as the final balance. The coffee address is now at 1 with 2 BTC donated, one of which is clearly my donation. This is no biggie, on my part, just odd.

But I'm still in search of an answer to my question.

Once the funds are transferred out of an address to another, is there a way to track where it goes/went next? I'm well versed on linking to the past transaction, well, maybe not that well, but I don't see where the Bitcoin is moved forward--again, only where it came from.

Maybe there's a blockexplorer 101 somewhere.

One more thing: I currently learned today that my friend, theymos, was the one who created the blockexplorer. Great work, theymos! That said, I take back everyone snide remark I made at his expense--but one. It'll be his job to figure out which one.  ;D

~Bruno~

I believe I'm now better able to address your concern, the joint.

The answer:

None, during the developmental stage of Bitcoin100, that is. But, rest assured, when Bitcoin100 becomes more fully developed, only its supporters will have a say in any selection process.


What kinda pisses me off about this, is that Bitcoin100 can't take much credit for this success, albeit partial credit may be warranted.

~Bruno~