Bitcoins at the British Museum

[niko]

That's one way to look at it; another perspective is that these are not donations to the museum, but simply acts of individuals that increase the value of the exhibited specimen. A museum displays a painting, and due to external reasons the value of paintings by that author skyrockets.  

I have not changed my mind on this, however after reading Mike's posts I have decided to respect his opinion and not donate to this address. The coin, and the fact that it ended up in this exhibition, are results of his hard work, after all. I hope everyone will respect his cautious approach, and refrain from sending funds for now.

[helloworld]

Randall (XKCD) continued to receive donations even *after* he took down his donation address.

The Equus ferus caballus has already exited the building...

Merely taking the coin down now won't help. They'd need to publicly send it back to Casascius or something.

Correct Horse Battery Staple? The comic is still out there, plus it's the default key at brainwallet.org, and some transactions have been passing through it and being swept away: http://blockchain.info/address/1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T

I didn't realize that his main donation address was related to Correct Horse Battery Staple. I was just talking about the donation page that he had put up on xkcd.com but which has been subsequently taken down.

Oh, no. It's not the same one:
http://xkcd.com/bitcoin/

Er, I also didn't realize that he put that page back online again.

[Otoh]

It seems ironic to me that some of those at the forefront of bitcoin's development think it unwise to send bitcoins to the British Museum's exhibition coin in order to show support & demonstrate just how & why it is so much different & better than every single other item in their exhibition on the history & evolution of money, if I were instead to just write to them expressing my approval of their decision to include bitcoins in their collection & enclosed a fiat cheque for £10 or so to show my appreciation I imagine that you'd be OK with this but just feel nervous because ppl may send them some bitcoins without first asking them if this is OK, well it's already been done so can't be undone - I don't feel like making a big deal over this & think it best to not contact them, at least for now, then to come back to this in a few months time when their coin will be a more long term established part of their exhibition & either themselves or perhaps some journalist or other interested party, perhaps yourselves, will have enlightened them as to just how awesome they could make this display by including a QR code & tablet with blockchain info etc which is something else to consider donating to them for this, anyway I'll drop it for now & just watch how things evolve over the next few months re this but I do hope that a few more ppl will also send the coin some funds so that if they do check it out they can see this happening.

[joecooin]

Otoh, I am absolutely with you.

Casascius, I don't understand your concerns at all.

This is not about donating to a museum and wondering how to properly get the donations into the accounts or pay taxes or something.

This is about a money museum documenting how the new money functions. Period.

And that cannot be done any better than by receiving transactions on the address of the coin, displaying these transactions somehow and explaining something like:

'People from all over the world are loading value up to this very coin displayed here by sending microtransactions which are free of charge in the Bitcoin economy. This value can only be taken off this coin and spent by breaking it's seal and accessing the private key to it's address.'

Now that would explain something and on the other hand really inspire people and make them curious about this kind of money.

And that's precicely what a museum is for.

So please everybody, send them some 0...1337... or something!

Joe

[casascius]

A lot of other smart people with more experience getting nonprofits to accept bitcoin understand the concern even if some others think it's overblown paranoia. Do what you must. Thanks to those of you willing to just leave a good thing alone.

[paraipan]

A lot of other smart people with more experience getting nonprofits to accept bitcoin understand the concern even if some others think it's overblown paranoia. Do what you must. Thanks to those of you willing to just leave a good thing alone.

[Adrian-x]

@ Otoh: good points.
@ casascius: thanks for making the coins and sending them - and giving Bitcoin a physical representation - you rock! - Way to go! -  You are now part of the history of the world.

Now just for the record, Bitcoin is a decentralised, P2P bases system, it functions on mathematics and the independent whims of the private key holders.  

The exhibit is just that, an exhibit, if people donate to it (it is illogical) but if they do the value of the exhibit increases, The value of the exhibit is assessed from time to time, but like art and gold it is rather a subjective assessment, and so is Bitcoins value.  

The act of increasing the value of an exhibit is not a donation to the museum, and the secondly shouldn't be confused.  (If I am willing to pay more for a Van Gogh than the next guy, the increase in potential value is not a donation, and when I do pay it is still not a donation but capital gains to the sellers)  If the museum ever sells the exhibit the value will be assesses at the time and the relative accounting and the taxes will be calculated at that time.  

Now my only concern in increasing the value of the exhibit in a way which is unique to Bitcoin by donating to the exhibit's public key is: casascius, could know the private key, and in fact be able to take the Bitcoins, from under the noses of the curators.  (The perfect heist, better than a cat burglar, bring on a new era of action movie.)

As for your concerns "casascius" if Satoshi expressed a desire that you not use Bitcoins for what he considerd nefarious activities would respect his wishes?  Or if Ben Bernanke expressed a concern that Bitcoin could have a nefarious impact on the US economy, would you respect his wishes and stop using it?

My point being there is no central control; it is up to the individual to decide how to use their Bitcoins not others.  But I still can't thank you enough for this contribution its awesome, thank you.

[casascius]

The act of increasing the value of an exhibit is not a donation to the museum, and the secondly shouldn't be confused.

It shouldn't, but could be.  We keep saying Bitcoins are money, right?  This line of reasoning depends on Bitcoins not being money, and being more like a painting.  We can't ask to have it both ways.  If the museum's bean counters think because bitcoin is arguably money that "this is revenue" or "this might be viewed by others as revenue", they may feel constrained to act in accordance with that.

As for your concerns "casascius" if Satoshi expressed a desire that you not use Bitcoins for what he considerd nefarious activities would respect his wishes?

Hey, it's happened in the past: example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999

Coincidentally, it's for much the same reason.

[Adrian-x]

Hey, it's happened in the past: example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999
Coincidentally, it's for much the same reason.

Now that's a good memory! (I was still ignorant of Bitcoin back then not to mention ignorant Satoshi was ever a member here)
I am sympathetic to your plight, there may be concerns as lots people are eager to point out, but despite being invested in the whole ecosystem I am not convinced this sort of publicity is what will harm Bitcoin but rather it's a selling feature. The real killer problem is the distribution, in combination with human nature.

It shouldn't, but could be.  We keep saying Bitcoins are money, right?  This line of reasoning depends on Bitcoins not being money, and being more like a painting.  We can't ask to have it both ways.  If the museum's bean counters think because bitcoin is arguably money that "this is revenue" or "this might be viewed by others as revenue", they may feel constrained to act in accordance with that.

I think of Bitcoin as a means of exchange. " AbelsFire" summarised it quite effectively.

4. Bitcoin isn't money. It's something new which is better than money.

There you go. Now we no longer need to have pointless semantic arguments and can actually talk about something relevant, like what kinds of things can we do now with Bitcoin that we couldn't do before when all we had was money.

But to your point we are talking about an exhibit* (which is more like a work of art than money), the more interesting, dynamic, interactive, and mysterious the exhibit the bitter. I wouldn't be too concerned about Bitcoin becoming legal tender overnight, so until it is granted legal status as Money, and you can pay your taxes with Bitcoin, the value fluctuations are just capital gain or loss accounted for when you cash out into Fiat. 

Keep in mind this is an exsibit about the history of money, and statistics show that 98.3759% of people are not interested in paying to see an exhibit dedicated to the history of money.

* (and I can't believe I am chatting with the exhibits creator, it is kind of cool to be lumped in with that groundbreaking history. )

[Adrian-x]

@casascius just out of interest you don't keep the private keys to all your coins do you? Or have an algorithm to reveres engineer them from the public key?

[Adrian-x]

@ ianbakewell thanks' I guess I should have looked.

[Narydu]

I think that they should be contacted by casascius and thank them for the honor and them explain them this situation. He could always invent them a special fake coin if they would prefer to avoid it (the cas coin it self is fake, not a real btc, just a representation of it). On the other hand it could open their eyes and see it as part of the future, as part of the evolution of money or wallets. They could even think to explain it better or with the 7" idea. Or just understand that it's a property intrisic to the coin it self. If they don't, they might never ever be able to show any new money created based on Internet.

There is no sense in avoiding the exhibition of the coin when there are so many ways to go through this concerns.

@Casascius don't be afraid of loosing the honor they did to you and your wife (hope you send them a series 1), there in no downsides if you talk to them with honesty and alternative solutions, but there is too much to win for "Bitcoin" and to show to the visitors if they agree to keep it, understand it, and deal with what ever economic issue they think it might arose.

Said this, as I see it, is your ego (please don't take it wrong, i'm saying it in a good way) against the bitcoin behalf of being presented as something more than something possibly bad, to which you are then again linked.

;-)

[casascius]

If it ain't broke, I see no need to fix it.  You are suggesting I contact them and say "Look, you didn't know problem X exists, but if you think about it long enough, you might come to the conclusion that problem X might exist, so let me help you solve it in advance."  If the definition of "problem X" is not an actual problem, but only their perception of a potential one, then contacting them in this way only serves to create the very problem we're pretending to solve.  

Case in point: If I went to my neighbor's house and said, "Hey there... Just thought I'd let you know, I am not a thief, which you can verify by doing a criminal background check on me, but if any of your stuff goes missing, you're welcome to check my garage any time, and meanwhile, I recommend XYZ brand locks, because they are the hardest to pick".  This would be an example of creating a problem under the pretense of solving one that never existed!  This is what you're suggesting I do.

What if (imagine this big huge fucking "if") they can put an exhibit on display, and it just sits there like they planned, and nobody who stands to benefit from its increased exposure bothers to contact them to make sure they "learn" more about it, just like no one is contacting them about the other 6 million things they have on display for the same reason?

[julz]

If it ain't broke, I see no need to fix it.

...

What if (imagine this big huge fucking "if") they can put an exhibit on display, and it just sits there like they planned, and nobody who stands to benefit from its increased exposure bothers to contact them to make sure they "learn" more about it, just like no one is contacting them about the other 6 million things they have on display for the same reason?

Yeah.. even if the 'problem' of the increased value is actually no problem to them -  over-enthusiastic contact from Bitcoiners could sure come across in the wrong way.
The unique aspects of Bitcoin that allow these donations may still be academically and historically interesting to them - but just like journalists don't like to be 'used' by PR companies and self-promoters - It wouldn't surprise me to see this exhibit getting tucked into long-term storage if they feel they're being used to promote/pump some quasi-investment.

 

[FuzzyBear]

Really like this +1 British Museum

[Gabi]

We keep saying Bitcoins are money, right?

Nah. I say that bitcoin is digital gold. Is gold money? No. 

[molecular]

We keep saying Bitcoins are money, right?

Nah. I say that bitcoin is digital gold. Is gold money? No. 

+1

Bitcoin being money just complicates things. It's a virtual commodity used as a medium of exchange by some freaks. Let's just keep the first part of that sentence and work on replacing the italicized one.

(also see lonelyminers masther thesis on bitcoin for an argument why bitcoin is not money (yet))

[mccorvic]

This is really awesome! I can't really say anything else but that!

[lunarboy]

looks like this story isn't quite finished yet.

1NyVMo79Vanhbu92MpPQgCbu9MDV5a4NhW    @   2.50302213 BTC  = £233 at todays rate. Their coin is going up in value either way.

 

[cedivad]

Meh, room 68 is closed!