Logged in for the first time in over 6 months to say:

+1

Communication is so important, particularly in the Bitcoin economy where there are so many significant uncertainties and unknowns.  I really think it would be wise for Intersango to more actively counter FUD with fact to protect their image.

My deposit from 10 days ago finally went through.  I'll be withdrawing some BTC shortly.

Update:  I withdrew some BTC successfully (now 4 transactions).  I was surprised to see that the transaction, for which Intersango paid a fee of 0.0005 BTC, did not find its way into a block for quite a few hours.  I looked at some of the blocks which decided not to bother confirming this withdrawal and the average fee in most of them was between 0.0006 and 0.0008 (some had an average below 0.0005 though).  Thoughts? 

I don't want to break up the flow you guys have going here but I just thought of a good example of a charitable organisation which I would refuse to fund:

The Internet Watch Foundation.  IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee. Charity No. 1112398.

I have to admit though that it's very hard to find charitable organisation which I would refuse to fund.  I'm pretty certain I'll say yes to all of the first 100 anyway.

Aha!  Thank you very much for this.  I guess it shows that I don't have much experience with GUIs .

This is not all wasted effort though.  I found that when I tried to edit a label that the window which came up was titled "new sending address", unsuitable for editing an existing receiving address.

Anyway, I'm happy now. 

When I double click on an address in the transactions list (bitcoin-qt) I get a "transaction details" box but this gives me no chance to edit the label of the address.

If I double click a label in the sent coins or receiving lists then I can change it (new to me) so thanks for this.

The main problem of adding labels to addresses which are mentioned in the transaction list but do not appear in the sent coins or receiving lists remains.

Interesting.  Surely everyone reading that page donating $1 would be a horribly inefficient way of raising funds.  I guess they are just trying to make a point about how little they need to keep running.

Personally, I would be much more interested in a letter which asked Wikipedia to give their thoughts on Bitcoin rather than to promote Bitcoin and extol its virtues:
  Perhaps the main problem is the natural anonymity Bitcoin affords.  Is there a framework which would allow them to require contact information with each donation?
  Perhaps the main problem is simply the small size of the Bitcoin community.  It may cost Wikipedia more to sort out the legal side of things than they could expect to receive from the community.  In this case, how much promised wealth would it take for Wikipedia to formally begin to accept Bitcoin donations?  If they consider and decide that, for 2500 BTC say, they would have sufficient incentive to establish Bitcoin as a proper alternative donation method then the ball is back in our court.

Don't worry, you're doing a great job right now.  Certainly if I cared deeply about high security for my Bitcoin100 funds then I would have held them myself and donated them manually one at a time.

Thanks for doing all this work.  As I said before, it helps a great deal for my personal circumstances.

I've somehow managed to get myself in the situation where 4 or 5 of the addresses I have for receiving payments have no label.  Possibly addr.dat was overwritten by an older version at some point.

I'd love to add labels to these addresses to make it easier to understand my transaction history but I can't work out how to do this.  I've not found anything with the current client (0.5.1) that can do this and the (-rescan) option didn't help either.

Is there some way of adding labels to these addresses?  Maybe using Pywallet?

EDIT: I've just discovered I cannot change existing labels either.  I think I was able to do this with (0.4.0) so I'll keep a copy of the old software for this.  Perhaps I should look into using the command-line interface to organise and manage my addresses and labels.

Lol

"128 qbit capability"!?  The soundcard mining was more believable.

As would I, but I'd prefer such donation to take place after Bitcoin100 has contacted archive.org with this offer and archive.org has replied positively and with a request for this support.

What is the general sentiment among the Bitcoin100 for supporting organisations that establish a Bitcoin donation independently of this project and manage to raise quite a bit regardless?

True that.  I was just giving extreme examples.  Basically, I'm happy for my pledged bitcoins to go practically anyway as a promotion of Bitcoin itself but even with a quantifier of "charitable organisation" or "non-profit organisation" I simply cannot say that "I will donate to anyone".

What I can do is send 99 BTC (I've sent 1 already) to the Bitcoin100 with the understanding that they (Phinnaeus Gage and/or those he appoints) will give me 3 days notice by e-mail of any organisation they want to fund so I have a short window to veto for my funds if necessary.  I'll probably get back a positive response quickly enough but if I don't respond to the e-mail within 3 days then the funds can be used as needed.  This would provide some liquidity which would help Bitcoin100 support charitable organisations with short notice.

PM me if you're interested Phinnaeus.

I certainly understand the sentiment and would love to do the same.  I expect I'd have no problem with pretty much all organisations that would be considered for support.  I would however refuse to donate to organisations such as Monsanto or the RIAA and for this reason alone simply cannot say "I pledge 1 BTC to any charity/organisation which adds a Bitcoin donation option".

Generally, I won't be upset if Bitcoin100 money ends up going to causes I wouldn't usually donate to.  As you noted, such pledged money is much more like a donation to Bitcoin itself.  If a cause comes along that I really do want to donate to (TOR, Free software foundation, archive.org) then I will make a serious donation on top.

I would be dismayed if the Bitcoin100 didn't manage to get 100 new charities to accept Bitcoin.  It would be a great shame for us to only get through 5 or 6 charities before fizzling out due to there being too much caution.  Just my thought though.

Yes, this is going very well.  I don't know much about fees but which payment processors charge a fee for donating money and how much?  Is anyone able to make a reasonable estimate to the amout of purchasing power which has been saved by using Bitcoin rather than, say, PayPal?  How about currency conversion? (I'm not from the US at least).

I'm in agreement with Technomage on this one.

1) If you wanted to donate to archive.org anyway but would prefer bitcoins and are holding funds back because of crappy positioning you are being petty.

2) If you are donating to charities and organisations which take the time and effort to add a Bitcoin donation option simply because you want to promote Bitcoin then I feel withholding funds is justified.

Rather than arguing it would be good to try and work out how much archive.org would receive for repositioning it's Bitcoin donation option appropriately?  Also, are there people who are worried that archive.org may have rushed into this without thinking properly and shortly have to remove their donation link for legal reasons and consequently are holding back their donation for a month or so?

I don't think the Bitcoin100 should be a free hand-out.  The two natural criteria seem to be:

1) The cause asking for funds is generally deemed worthy (most charities).
2) They add Bitcoin100 as an alternative donation method.

In this case, archive.org narrowly miss satisfying condition (2) due to the layout of their donations page.

Truly awesome!  archive.org is something I've used a lot and actually tried to donate to on several occasions but I always ran into difficulties and gave.  Now I can finally donate to this worthy cause with ease!

25 BTC sent.

I'm sorry to see this pool likely come to an end so soon but I'm definitely glad that you're not allowing this project to cut too deeply into your own life.

I hope you had fun creating and growing this pool .  I certainly had fun helping.

I agree.  I'd feel much better about working on a good quality e-mail and sending it to various small charities that really could benefit from this offer than in pestering one charity.  The e-mail that Rassah sent was great but if they didn't even reply then a second message, especially so soon, will come of as spammy.

Let us know if they start accepting Bitcoin donations.  For a case like this I expect many people would like to donate more.

In general.  If a payment processor cuts off a charity and they reach out to Bitcoin for help then I'd offer 2 BTC instead of 1.

Perhaps the mods just haven't been on for a long time.  It's not a big worry though.  The fact is, even unstickied, this pool has quickly swelled to the size of arsbitcoin.com and eligius.st.

I'm still not clear on how this is going to work exactly.  Although I would want the chance to veto the donation to a charity I had a problem with I would happily accept a 3-day timeout with a default action of donating.  I've just sent 1 BTC to the Bitcoin100 address (waiting on the blockchain to update before it goes through) and I assume this is to prepare for the first charity.

Could I send funds sufficient for a small number of charities at a time?  I like the idea of the Bitcoin100 but can't afford to be very hands on and would be happier helping by just supplying some funds.  How will you keep track of who has pledged what?