I've sent 3 Bitcoins, you can use all 3 of them for 1 charity if people don't respond, I don't mind either way. I'll send more whenever I get a PM  Thank you kindly, BTCurious for your contribution to My Refuge House. Unless we reach the BTC100 soon, consider the entire donation going toward said cause. Rassah will know how to handle the transaction. An important question was ask of me via PM, and felt that posting the reply here was warranted. The author's name has been redacted. .......................... We are currently less than BTC30 short of having the entire BTC100 promised to them, hence this PM. Any and all donations to 1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac will truly be appreciated.
How did the overpromising happen? Thank you for taking the time to present to me your concern in regard to the PM I sent you while conducting in the capacity of Bitcoin 100. Because how Bitcoin 100 is currently structured, prospective non-profits (NPOs) are promised BTC100 iff they incorporate a Bitcoin donation option onto their respective websites. Designed somewhat akin to to [sic] a kickstarter-type program, coupled with our endeavor to bring more awareness to Bitcoin. As a nascent organisation, Bitcoin 100 is limited by the amount of donations we have on hand, thereby sometimes reverting to impromptu fund drives to make up the difference, recently using this option to garner the balance needed at the time for Bund. Granted, we do have more than BTC100 currently on hand to immediately transfer the promised amount, but that would mean dipping into funds donated by individuals to be dispersed in a rigorous manner. For example, Roger Ver has kindly donated BTC100 to be doled out BTC10 per charitable organization. Exactly the same is true with Zhou Tong's donation. It would be unfair to counter how they both expect their donations to be allocated. I hope the above addresses your question, and look forward to having the opportunity to readdress any future concerns on your part. In the spirit of full transparency, I will be posting this reply in the main Bitcoin 100 thread, sans your identity. Regards, Bruno Shouldn't there be a target to get Bitcoin 100 to an end? I mean the way it is handled now, you end up holding more and more coins that are not free to be given to the next charity. Wouldn't it make sense to target for bigger than those before charities with some promise to call B100 a success once the red cross/whatever accepts bitcoin and leave it to that returning the remaining funds? Yes! But only ending it as the way it's currently structured, oppose to shutting down Bitcoin 100 completely. In fact, the name-- Bitcoin 100--wouldn't do a 2.0 version justice, for I don't envision settling for some big fish. I want 'em all! And, by no means does that entail a desire to donate BTC100, or some other arbitrary sum, to every NPO on the planet, albeit that would be a noble undertaking, to say the least. Considering, for all practical purposes, most NPOs accept PayPal, CC, cash, etc., it's not outside the realm of possibility that those same entities can just as easily embed a specifically designed Bitcoin donation button unto their respective websites once Bitcoin becomes more mainstream. They did it for PayPal, but to do the same for Bitcoin would he a hell of lot easier. During the interim, then continuously thereafter, an entity--formally known as Bitcoin 100--will be the driving force that ensures ALL NPOs the following: able to collect bitcoins as donations from anybody around the world and without banks; someway/somehow able to transfer bitcoins to fiat with nary spending a satoshi on fees, if opting to not spend them directly to make needed purchases via online stores accepting Bitcoin; no need to go through a rigorous application process for acceptance; ever be concerned about chargebacks; among other aspects, some of which not yet dreamt up. Tentatively speaking, an immediate goal would be to get ten NPOs under our belt utilizing the current model, thus having a track record, of sorts, enabling us to springboard up to the next level. Amassing donations from this community only works for the way the organization is currently structured, but a more lofty enterprise will demand sourcing funding via other avenues. No matter what lies ahead, and under whatever name, 100% accountability and transparency will always be enforced. Also, although I may be the founder, I'm keenly aware that I would not be of CEO caliber as we move forward, but I do have an individual in mind, one whose not ever a Bitcoiner, believing that's not a prerequisite to perform said duty. Ideally, I would love to retain Rassah as the CFO, earning a salary further down the road. Speaking of salary: We've all seen, heard, or read, horror stories of how CEOs of major NPOs receive huge salaries, some while their organization of which they oversee maintain a low efficiency rating, or worse, are constantly in the red. I propose a salary base for any person working in the capacity of Bitcoin 100 (or some other name) to be of US minimum wage, not exceeding $20K USD/yr (probably plus minimum expenses). And if that individual puts in ten years of service, they would receive their last salary amount for life (sans expenses) if they chose to leave the organization. But that's all tentative. The bottom line is no matter what salary or other expenses will be in the future, this soon to be 501c3 NPO will have the highest efficiency rating, topping all charts readily available within a couple years, and will be the NPO that all others not only look up to, but musing to beat. That said, who has a extra million dollars lying around and willing to donate to the cause? Or, who has a plan to get a million people to donate one dollar, ten million to donate a dime, or a billion to donate a satoshi? Either option works. BTW, I have a plan. The only problem I foresee is that it will scare the fuck out of Rassah when so much money starts showing up on the books. Did I address your concern, giszmo?  ~Bruno K~ Oh, well, sort of. I just don't quite agree with it. I would prefer to see a rather short term goal at which point you, Rassah and all the BTC100 can call it a win and focus on other projects. I consider BTC100 slightly inefficient for all the money spent. I mean I also spent 1BTC towards BUND Berlin but BUND Berlin as the 5th(?) organization to receive $1300? I mean with that amount of money you could do a lot more good for BTC and I would be sad seeing the same amount of money goingt to BUND Munich, BUND Hannover, BUND Köln, etc. We should focus on more valuable multipliers. In this class off NPOs there is literally millions of organizations in the world. I will be out of pocket for about 3-4 hours, but afterward (by early this evening) I will address giszmo's concern fully. Some of his points are valid, while another or two need correcting. Reading between the lines, though, and hoping I read his reply correctly, the entire post has merit. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
I'm one of the few here who got to meet the Board of Correction--TWICE!  In Woodshop 101, the two favorite items built as a first project were gun racks and paddles, respectively. The bright students drilled holes in their paddles, knowing intuitively there's less resistance during the down stroke, and thus earning a higher grade. At the time (mid 70's), the principle conducted an annual competition. The best (not sure how that was determined) paddle would be the one used during the upcoming school year. In '78, the year I graduated, the winning entry met the ass of its maker for...wait for it...hitting a girl. Though not part of the conversation, I recall overhearing the student joking about the paddling while holding court with his fellow heathens during lunch hour. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
People have been labeled scammers for not paying out competitions in the past...
I may have been inclined to lean the other way, but considering he once played scammer police... I also think he is a scammer. When i asked if he has rep he gave me OTC profile for another user. I then asked if he has rep on this forum he said yes ask senior admins. FAIL scammer  It's still the holiday season, therefore a little more time is warranted. But considering his post count with really nothing to lose and not knowing who he/she truly is, such an action would be totally useless with the exception he would no longer log into an account that is duly labeled. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
An important question was ask of me via PM, and felt that posting the reply here was warranted. The author's name has been redacted. .......................... We are currently less than BTC30 short of having the entire BTC100 promised to them, hence this PM. Any and all donations to 1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac will truly be appreciated.
How did the overpromising happen? Thank you for taking the time to present to me your concern in regard to the PM I sent you while conducting in the capacity of Bitcoin 100. Because how Bitcoin 100 is currently structured, prospective non-profits (NPOs) are promised BTC100 iff they incorporate a Bitcoin donation option onto their respective websites. Designed somewhat akin to to [sic] a kickstarter-type program, coupled with our endeavor to bring more awareness to Bitcoin. As a nascent organisation, Bitcoin 100 is limited by the amount of donations we have on hand, thereby sometimes reverting to impromptu fund drives to make up the difference, recently using this option to garner the balance needed at the time for Bund. Granted, we do have more than BTC100 currently on hand to immediately transfer the promised amount, but that would mean dipping into funds donated by individuals to be dispersed in a rigorous manner. For example, Roger Ver has kindly donated BTC100 to be doled out BTC10 per charitable organization. Exactly the same is true with Zhou Tong's donation. It would be unfair to counter how they both expect their donations to be allocated. I hope the above addresses your question, and look forward to having the opportunity to readdress any future concerns on your part. In the spirit of full transparency, I will be posting this reply in the main Bitcoin 100 thread, sans your identity. Regards, Bruno Shouldn't there be a target to get Bitcoin 100 to an end? I mean the way it is handled now, you end up holding more and more coins that are not free to be given to the next charity. Wouldn't it make sense to target for bigger than those before charities with some promise to call B100 a success once the red cross/whatever accepts bitcoin and leave it to that returning the remaining funds? Yes! But only ending it as the way it's currently structured, oppose to shutting down Bitcoin 100 completely. In fact, the name-- Bitcoin 100--wouldn't do a 2.0 version justice, for I don't envision settling for some big fish. I want 'em all! And, by no means does that entail a desire to donate BTC100, or some other arbitrary sum, to every NPO on the planet, albeit that would be a noble undertaking, to say the least. Considering, for all practical purposes, most NPOs accept PayPal, CC, cash, etc., it's not outside the realm of possibility that those same entities can just as easily embed a specifically designed Bitcoin donation button unto their respective websites once Bitcoin becomes more mainstream. They did it for PayPal, but to do the same for Bitcoin would he a hell of lot easier. During the interim, then continuously thereafter, an entity--formally known as Bitcoin 100--will be the driving force that ensures ALL NPOs the following: able to collect bitcoins as donations from anybody around the world and without banks; someway/somehow able to transfer bitcoins to fiat with nary spending a satoshi on fees, if opting to not spend them directly to make needed purchases via online stores accepting Bitcoin; no need to go through a rigorous application process for acceptance; ever be concerned about chargebacks; among other aspects, some of which not yet dreamt up. Tentatively speaking, an immediate goal would be to get ten NPOs under our belt utilizing the current model, thus having a track record, of sorts, enabling us to springboard up to the next level. Amassing donations from this community only works for the way the organization is currently structured, but a more lofty enterprise will demand sourcing funding via other avenues. No matter what lies ahead, and under whatever name, 100% accountability and transparency will always be enforced. Also, although I may be the founder, I'm keenly aware that I would not be of CEO caliber as we move forward, but I do have an individual in mind, one whose not ever a Bitcoiner, believing that's not a prerequisite to perform said duty. Ideally, I would love to retain Rassah as the CFO, earning a salary further down the road. Speaking of salary: We've all seen, heard, or read, horror stories of how CEOs of major NPOs receive huge salaries, some while their organization of which they oversee maintain a low efficiency rating, or worse, are constantly in the red. I propose a salary base for any person working in the capacity of Bitcoin 100 (or some other name) to be of US minimum wage, not exceeding $20K USD/yr (probably plus minimum expenses). And if that individual puts in ten years of service, they would receive their last salary amount for life (sans expenses) if they chose to leave the organization. But that's all tentative. The bottom line is no matter what salary or other expenses will be in the future, this soon to be 501c3 NPO will have the highest efficiency rating, topping all charts readily available within a couple years, and will be the NPO that all others not only look up to, but musing to beat. That said, who has a extra million dollars lying around and willing to donate to the cause? Or, who has a plan to get a million people to donate one dollar, ten million to donate a dime, or a billion to donate a satoshi? Either option works. BTW, I have a plan. The only problem I foresee is that it will scare the fuck out of Rassah when so much money starts showing up on the books. Did I address your concern, giszmo? ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
 Although not knowing what the demographics are of Sudoku solvers, I fathom to guess that many are up in their years. There are a myriad of Sudoku puzzle books on the market, all having the solutions in the back. All that a person would have to do is have access to only one of those books, selecting any solved puzzle in the back to glean a password from. Even if they lose the book, as long as they somehow remember the books title, its edition number, or ISBN, they should have no problem getting another copy. The safest solution is to hide several copies of a solution page. From the image above, a 70-year-old woman would have 64 easy passwords to chose from: 16 rows left-to-right; 16 rows right-to-left; 16 columns top-to-bottom; 16 columns bottom-to-top. Thus, the first password would be 16A4BFCE8975302D. In fact, one doesn't even to purchase a book. Simply go to http://www.e-sudoku.fr/sudoku16x16.php and generate a random solved puzzle from there like below, where the first password choice would be ADF58B314G67C92E.  I just realized that there's 16 inner grids from which another 64 easy passwords could be cleaned, the fist being ADF5C8G79462BE13. A hacker would need to know that Sudoku was used to generate a password, after somehow determining that a minimum amount of bitcoins protected would be worth their efforts to steal. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
An important question was ask of me via PM, and felt that posting the reply here was warranted. The author's name has been redacted. .......................... We are currently less than BTC30 short of having the entire BTC100 promised to them, hence this PM. Any and all donations to 1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac will truly be appreciated.
How did the overpromising happen? Thank you for taking the time to present to me your concern in regard to the PM I sent you while conducting in the capacity of Bitcoin 100. Because how Bitcoin 100 is currently structured, prospective non-profits (NPOs) are promised BTC100 iff they incorporate a Bitcoin donation option onto their respective websites. Designed somewhat akin to to [sic] a kickstarter-type program, coupled with our endeavor to bring more awareness to Bitcoin. As a nascent organisation, Bitcoin 100 is limited by the amount of donations we have on hand, thereby sometimes reverting to impromptu fund drives to make up the difference, recently using this option to garner the balance needed at the time for Bund. Granted, we do have more than BTC100 currently on hand to immediately transfer the promised amount, but that would mean dipping into funds donated by individuals to be dispersed in a rigorous manner. For example, Roger Ver has kindly donated BTC100 to be doled out BTC10 per charitable organization. Exactly the same is true with Zhou Tong's donation. It would be unfair to counter how they both expect their donations to be allocated. I hope the above addresses your question, and look forward to having the opportunity to readdress any future concerns on your part. In the spirit of full transparency, I will be posting this reply in the main Bitcoin 100 thread, sans your identity. Regards, Bruno |
|
|
|
A fellow not from Des Moines,
Nor bought or sold pork loins.
Used to troll here a lot,
Then a scammer tag he got:
For crazy betting, owing 100,000+ coins. I will pay BTC100 per week for each winning limerick, provided it's in the same format as above, with the results voted on by Amish Elders from a community in Indiana. I enjoy a good limerick. The bitcoiner known as Gage,
Continuously revealing his age,
Records transactions on papyrus,
Does accounting by abacus,
And uses a flywheel to scroll down this page! The Amish Elders just informed me via smoke signals that they're not connected to the internet yet, but once they do, they will surely look at all the entries and pronounce a winner. That said, it's a little too early to consider giving them a scammer tag. |
|
|
|
I just put in 111.1111 mBTC. I will get to my pledge eventually.  Every bit helps, Bear. I'll never judge the size of any donation, nor chastise anyone for not contributing. Next time, though, consider stating your donation is satoshis to make it look more impressive. ~Bruno K~ I think we should get everybody used to mBTC, then later moving to satoshis will be easier. Your post has merit, albeit my remark was for humorous purposes only. Thanks again, Bear. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
Thank you for your participation.
The following user, who will receive a coin with interest: 13iFJCKYCErezFfiTHZUWzoBGmVQjSBiz9 (0.39 BTC).
In the future I plan to open the entire transaction statistics that the scheme was more transparent.
Now the scheme works like this: the earlier coins put the earlier coins received.
What does the last person who puts in receive? |
|
|
|
Scotland Yards stated that he died alone, the only fact I believe in this case, for there wasn't room enough for two people in the bag. Well, at least there's one fact that's not in dispute. OTOH, we can't exclude the possibility of two people entering the bag, with the second person exiting after Mr. Williams succumbed due to carbon dioxide poisoning, then cleaning the bathroom before leaving the flat. |
|
|
|
$60.4 billion towards reconstructing the areas is good amount.
Consider, the poor neighborhoods will be rebuilt first, then the most affluent neighborhoods next, and finally, always at the end of the doling-out-of-funds-after-a-natural-disaster, getting the vital businesses up and running. Maybe I have this ass backwards. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
Oh yeah. folded himself into a sports bag. Seems legit.
What the fuck? Who 'locks' himself into a sports bag and doesn't give himself room to breathe? How? What? Claustrophiliacs [sic ]FTFY! Remember, Mr. Williams executed said task in the confines of a bathtub where the bag was discovered. 300 sets of prints pulled from the entire flat with the exception of the bathroom--where done were discovered. I reckon that's true of the lock, let alone finding no prints on the key found inside the bag with the nude body. Scotland Yards stated that he died alone, the only fact I believe in this case, for there wasn't room enough for two people in the bag. |
|
|
|
I just put in 111.1111 mBTC. I will get to my pledge eventually. Every bit helps, Bear. I'll never judge the size of any donation, nor chastise anyone for not contributing. Next time, though, consider stating your donation is satoshis to make it look more impressive. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
I figured someone else would have mentioned this by now (sorry if someone did and I missed it), but the price category defaults are a little strange. My choices are often "$0 - $9999" and then "$10,000 - "19,999" when I am looking at something like printers or computer monitors. When I go to other electronic store websites, I often pick a price category and then browse for something I might want, but I can't do that easily here.
(bonus: add a custom price range)
This issue has been fixed. The current price ranges are now: $0.00 - $49.99 $50.00 - $99.99 $100.00 - $249.99 $250.00 - $499.99 $500.00 - $999.99 $1,000.00 - $2,999.99 $3,000.00 - $4,999.99 $5,000.00 - $7,999.99 $8,000.00 and above and the customer will be able to choose custom price ranges soon. The other issues people mentioned will be fixed soon as well. Any tweak to make the customer's experience more pleasant is a plus in my book. Sometimes a business doesn't know there's an issue unless it's brought to their attention, this being a fine example. Keep up the good work, Roger. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
Great to see another one nearly there (was busy with the "competition" I was running so only got around to this now).
Another 5 BTC from CIYAM is on its way (tx 7213b4a6f7d7349730288b1fa4bb2b8420c914cc283db41fe99e82391a400f25).
Thank you once again, Ian, for your generous donation. Is it safe to assume that your entire contribution is meant for My Refuge House? I don't want to take this act of kindness for this particular cause for granted. The list has been updated, nonetheless. Yup - put it all in. Wonderful, Ian. As I've stated, I didn't want to take your act of kindness for granted. Rassah will handle the particulars and I'll adjust the list to reflect this revelation. ~Bruno K~ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
