Also

http://www.baltimoreannapoliskendo.com/common/page.php?id=15

this is also a non-profit (registered), run by volunteers, open to the public, with monthly fees only going to pay to rent the practice space. This isn't really a charity, but thought I'd ask.

They're definitely not subtle: http://www.leagueagainstaids.com/index2.html  and  http://www.leagueagainstaids.com/53.html

$1,000 donation sent: https://blockchain.info/tx/4fdcc37f6045ad3184a92b6b371467259d234631bbb026d4c65b78238b1a1417

Also, the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, a London-based NGO, just started to accept bitcoin (http://www.srilankacampaign.org/giveanonymously.htm) They actually started taking it a sort while ago, but forgot to tell us Does that disqualify them? (*looks at Phinneas*  )

And now Erik Fendik from he DC Bitcoin Meetup group has joined in to help:


Thanks to Kite Runner and Thousand Splendid Suns, I'm all for getting women access to education in Afghanistan, so these are +1 for me



This one seems fine too.


Donating bikes to let kids reach far away schools, and others reach markets and such in remote areas. Man, some of these charities are inventive +1 from me, too.

This is possible in the same way that it's possible for there to be an infinite amount of Facebook and eBay clones, and eventually may be as possible as for there to be TCI/IP and Email clones.

So, what would you call the recent NSA revelations, as well as all the dissapearances of money in Iraq, the wars as a whole, and hell, the entire set of congress-passed laws that are near impossible to follow at this point, simply due to the sheer size and complexity?

My mom sent them KYC info some time in early to mid November. Then she wired them $5,000 USD using international wire some time I think on the 15th of November. Bitstamp asked for more KYC info a week later, which has been submitted. It's going on week 4 now without the money showing up in her account

Gary North, supposedly an economic advisor to Ron Paul, and a predictor that the world would collapse due to Y2K, wrote an article claiming that Bitcoin is a Ponzi bubble.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/gary-north/is-bitcoin-a-ponzi-scheme/

That claim was thoroughly debunked (or not, depending on whom you asked) by John Mather here

http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/12/01/ponzi-logic-debunking-gary-north/

In response, Gary North wrote two rebuttals. In the first, he claims that he never called bitcoin a fraud, despite that being the implication of calling it a ponzi bubble, AND that bitcoin consists of people making BS to sell it off to the next fool.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/11843.cfm

In this one he also continuously makes the mistake of not recognizing that for a currency to get big enough to actually support any level of economic activity, it MUST grow rapidly if it started at $0. The whole argument seems dumb if you take his recommendations, and try to purpose starting a purely digital and distributed currency that starts off with a multi-billion dollar market cap. But I digress. As mentioned, after this article, he wrote another follow-up here

http://www.garynorth.com/public/11844.cfm

In which he claims

"Recently, the Economic Policy Journal ran an article, "Is Bitcoin Money: What Economists Have to Say." The editor asked a dozen economists. Two said "yes, Bitcoins are money." ... Everyone else said "no.""

The article he references is here

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/is-bitcoin-money-what-economists-have.html

Gary North claims 13 economists, 2 yesses, and 11 no's. But read the article yourself. The actual statements are 3 yesses, 8 "not yet", and 2 no's. Many of the "not yet's" even seen positive, and claim that specific thing that North seems to miss, that bitcoin must continue to grow to become more widely accepted as money.  Honestly, I didn't even read the rest of his rebuttal after this "2 yes and the rest no" claim...

So, did Gary North pretty much lie to try to make his case?

Hmm, don't know where you got your statistics from, but these say otherwise. It's a chart of total global labor force, employment, and unemployment from 1948 to present



Note that technology has been booming, jobs have been getting replaced, population has been increasing, and yet unemployment has remained fairly constant. So, jobs replaced by technology were apparently being replaced by new jobs.

Sure, if you just look at your country, labor participation may be down, businesses are shutting down and leaving, people are going to work at fast food and other part time jobs because all good jobs moved away. This got especially worse since 2008, when economies of your and other major countries somewhat crashed, and tons of new regulations were put in place. However, if you look at the rest of the world, that's where all those closing businesses and jobs moved to. So in there view, they went from crappy jobs such as subsistence farming,  prostitution, dusty literal sweatshops, and more recently phone support, to the kinds of things you are complaining about having to do now, which in their view is infinitely better.

Technology didn't just arrive and start taking away jobs in mid 2000. And yours is not the only country in the world.

Wrote emails and did phone interviews for this. Hope it came out alright

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/12/bitcoin-homeless-redux/

Now we can finally take a breather and plan this party properly. Should we still aim for Spring then?

Market forces can create killer robots to handle riots.

This is probably the main point of disagreement for us. I believe that, regardless of what concepts I might have about heads, walls, and me, that that wall will exist there, and will stop all heads from going through it if they attempt to. I.e. objective reality exists regardless of our subjective concepts, and we just make subjective meanings and concepts about the objective reality that exists around us as a way of trying to understand and categorize it. Thus there is a single objective truth, which is that stuff exists in whatever form it exists. We just try our best to interpret and conceptualize it based on our limited perception. To ignore or throw out this truth would mean basically danking the whole world's existence.

EDIT: Reading your stuff in the contexts of just your stuff, I'm realizing I may have been totally danked in the head regarding my views of what you are actually trying to say, conflating your and his claims to be saying something similar. Am I right that you are actually saying two completely different things, and he's just nuts?

Wait, that's what the little QR thing up there is? HOLY CRAP!!! 
Question, can you create a transaction, or a series of transactions, without the prior transactions being confirmed yet? Just wondering about using a phone as cold storage options.

This is still wrong. Anony uses "can not" to mean "should not, but might" because if it does, then bitcoin is vulnerable to attack. I, and all empirical evidence, suggest that security literally can not be tiny compared to the market cap. Market cap goes up > mining profitability goes up > miners chasing profits enter and security goes up. Market cap goes down > mining profitability goes down > miners avoiding losses leave and security goes down. This applies even if there is no more block rewards, as increased market cap = increase in bitcoin value = increase in transaction fees OR increase in economic activity and thus increase in number of transactions with fees. So as market cap goes up, governments, cartels, and everyone else will all be chasing profits, increasing security against each other.
And sorry if this is an oversimplification - yes, there are some feedback loops from miners that affect the price as well - but in general that's the way it is, with other thiings being mostly glitches, such as lack of hardware, or long delays after preorders.

Lately, yeah. They probably had no choice, but they were fighting it like crazy. If you look at German Deutchmarks, and then the Euro years before the 2008 crazness, you'll see that they are fairly flat.

A Harvard Business School case paper on economic history of 20th century Germany claims that Wiemar Republic was printing money like crazy, because the guy in charge of the central bank had too little power, and too many people and organizations pushing him into doing it. He would essentially be assassinated if he refused to inflate. The massive inflation that resulted from that weak government was what got people to fote for an extremely strong government, in hopes that it would resist influence and prevent inflation. That jews owned many banks and ended up making out like bandits simply from the massive inflation itself (not stealing, but in the same way how a mortgage owner would make out like a bandit on a 4% mortgage loan if inflation shot up to %50), kinda made the jews an extremely disliked group, too.
Moral of the story that Germany learns was: Inflation causes Hitlers. It's why Germany, and the European Central Bank, are so extremely resistant to inflation, and are willing to let countries collapse or do forced seisures, than inflate the Euro.

Thanks for your help. I notified the charities that they can go ahead and start the process. I'd be totally lost without you 

If I walk into a wall, I will bump my head on it regardless of what I believe about it. So, agree to disagree. You can't conviince me, and I can't convince you, because we just have two completely different ways of looking at the world.

Though I do think that encouraging the thought that "everything is just a part of our imagination" is rather dangerous.

Just FYI, the Standard financial.economic terms for the first one is "cost" (as in cost of production). So cost is what the company spends to make something, and price is what it sells it for.