It looks like Bitcoin charities are starting to voice opinions on scalability

[EvanFaggart]

Bitcoinist just published an interview with the founder and director of the BitHope Foundation. When asked about the block size debate, he said the current discussions are "instrumental" to finding a solution. Normally we don't here things on issues like this from charities, what do you guys think about that?

Article link: www.bitcoinist.net/bithope-speaks-scalability-ngo/

[unamis76]

If the guy runs a charity using Bitcoin, of course these kinds of discussions are essential and important for them... They will eventually help maintain their charity operation or break them. I think it's very important they voice their own opinion, as their actions are supposed to empower a lot of people and this should not be halted due to issues in Bitcoin's technical progress.

[Lauda]

It is important for them too, however I'm surprised that he voiced his opinion (I was not expecting it). Notable parts:

However, I believe that even if fees go from 4 to 20 USD cents, a 400% increase, due to full blocks – donors will still be willing to donate. I believe that Bitcoin’s current problems will not stop new users entering the sphere. Bitcoin is functioning how it is supposed to be.

I am certain that high transaction volumes will be realized with code upgrades such as Side Chains, the Lightning Network and parallel-to-Bitcoin payment channels.
Before these are implemented, a temporary solution such as an increase of the bitcoin block size will be introduced, first by a clever software touch-up represented by the Segregated Witness proposal, and later by a hard fork, coming from either Classic or Core developers (although Core are currently considered as a bit of an immature bunch by many).

As always: Segwit first then HF later by one group. People just need to be a bit more patient until Segwit gets released and activated and then we will see how to move forward. Don't forget that a HF proposal should be presented between April and July (or up to 3 months after Segwit).

[EvanFaggart]

If the guy runs a charity using Bitcoin, of course these kinds of discussions are essential and important for them... They will eventually help maintain their charity operation or break them. I think it's very important they voice their own opinion, as their actions are supposed to empower a lot of people and this should not be halted due to issues in Bitcoin's technical progress.

I agree, I think charities are often forgotten in these kinds of discussions because they are so focused on their own missions, but they are a huge part of spreading awareness. I think charitable acts are one of the best ways to spread the word about Bitcoin, especially in developing countries.

[franky1]

It is important for them too, however I'm surprised that he voiced his opinion (I was not expecting it). Notable parts:

However, I believe that even if fees go from 4 to 20 USD cents, a 400% increase, due to full blocks – donors will still be willing to donate. I believe that Bitcoin’s current problems will not stop new users entering the sphere. Bitcoin is functioning how it is supposed to be.

I am certain that high transaction volumes will be realized with code upgrades such as Side Chains, the Lightning Network and parallel-to-Bitcoin payment channels.
Before these are implemented, a temporary solution such as an increase of the bitcoin block size will be introduced, first by a clever software touch-up represented by the Segregated Witness proposal, and later by a hard fork, coming from either Classic or Core developers (although Core are currently considered as a bit of an immature bunch by many).

As always: Segwit first then HF later by one group. People just need to be a bit more patient until Segwit gets released and activated and then we will see how to move forward. Don't forget that a HF proposal should be presented between April and July (or up to 3 months after Segwit).

or the HF code included in april with a grace period that activates 3 months after segwit. that way people dont need to endlessly wait on blockstream and need to endlessly need to upgrade their software multiple times.

blockstream have a plan. and here is an analogy.
they want to create the new iphone. but instead of having new features included in the release, their sales pitch is to allow facetime to work with an update 2 years after release(roadmap of 2015 suggest HF 2017). yet they pretend to say "we have listened to our customers and we will give them facetime with the new iphone"
then going on a propoganda mission trying to get users to not use samsung videocalls. saying that it cloggs up the mobile 4g network and has many other doomsday scenario's. while iphone is letting people send smilies in 2016 as a reduced way of expressing peoples facial expressions, and telling people that sendin texts(offchain) is better than videocalls because people can show their emotions using only 100bytes(100character messages) instead of 3mb a minute video.

be honest people, would you be ok if iphone said that you should only use text messages and they wont have facetime available for 2 years.
imagine if skype wanted to only be a text messenger for 2 years.
imagine it twitch, youtube wanted to turn into twitter for 2 years.

if bitcoin was the 4g network, we should not be blindly going with iphones agenda. bitcoin should not be dominated by one corporation

[Gleb Gamow]

It is important for them too, however I'm surprised that he voiced his opinion (I was not expecting it). Notable parts:

However, I believe that even if fees go from 4 to 20 USD cents, a 400% increase, due to full blocks – donors will still be willing to donate. I believe that Bitcoin’s current problems will not stop new users entering the sphere. Bitcoin is functioning how it is supposed to be.

I am certain that high transaction volumes will be realized with code upgrades such as Side Chains, the Lightning Network and parallel-to-Bitcoin payment channels.
Before these are implemented, a temporary solution such as an increase of the bitcoin block size will be introduced, first by a clever software touch-up represented by the Segregated Witness proposal, and later by a hard fork, coming from either Classic or Core developers (although Core are currently considered as a bit of an immature bunch by many).

As always: Segwit first then HF later by one group. People just need to be a bit more patient until Segwit gets released and activated and then we will see how to move forward. Don't forget that a HF proposal should be presented between April and July (or up to 3 months after Segwit).

or the HF code included in april with a grace period that activates 3 months after segwit. that way people dont need to endlessly wait on blockstream and need to endlessly need to upgrade their software multiple times.

blockstream have a plan. and here is an analogy.
they want to create the new iphone. but instead of having new features included in the release, their sales pitch is to allow facetime to work with an update 2 years after release(roadmap of 2015 suggest HF 2017). yet they pretend to say "we have listened to our customers and we will give them facetime with the new iphone"
then going on a propoganda mission trying to get users to not use samsung videocalls. saying that it cloggs up the mobile 4g network and has many other doomsday scenario's. while iphone is letting people send smilies in 2016 as a reduced way of expressing peoples facial expressions, and telling people that sendin texts(offchain) is better than videocalls because people can show their emotions using only 100bytes(100character messages) instead of 3mb a minute video.

be honest people, would you be ok if iphone said that you should only use text messages and they wont have facetime available for 2 years.
imagine if skype wanted to only be a text messenger for 2 years.
imagine it twitch, youtube wanted to turn into twitter for 2 years.

if bitcoin was the 4g network, we should not be blindly going with iphones agenda. bitcoin should not be dominated by one corporation

I like this post. Apologies for not commenting further.

[Kprawn]

I think the most important reason why people prefer to use Bitcoin over other currencies or payment methods is the cheaper fees. When you donate money to a organization or a cause, you do not want a large

percentage of that to go to fees... you want all or most of that, to go directly to the cause. The scalability debate will have a direct impact on their income and how quickly they can get that money, with the

least amount of fees. So, yes... They will have a say on the impact of this debate on their business.   

[Carlton Banks]

It is important for them too, however I'm surprised that he voiced his opinion (I was not expecting it). Notable parts:

However, I believe that even if fees go from 4 to 20 USD cents, a 400% increase, due to full blocks – donors will still be willing to donate. I believe that Bitcoin’s current problems will not stop new users entering the sphere. Bitcoin is functioning how it is supposed tsomeo be.

I am certain that high transaction volumes will be realized with code upgrades such as Side Chains, the Lightning Network and parallel-to-Bitcoin payment channels.
Before these are implemented, a temporary solution such as an increase of the bitcoin block size will be introduced, first by a clever software touch-up represented by the Segregated Witness proposal, and later by a hard fork, coming from either Classic or Core developers (although Core are currently considered as a bit of an immature bunch by many).

As always: Segwit first then HF later by one group. People just need to be a bit more patient until Segwit gets released and activated and then we will see how to move forward. Don't forget that a HF proposal should be presented between April and July (or up to 3 months after Segwit).

or the HF code included in april with a grace period that activates 3 months after segwit. that way people dont need to endlessly wait on blockstream and need to endlessly need to upgrade their software multiple times.

blockstream have a plan. and here is an analogy.
they want to create the new iphone. but instead of having new features included in the release, their sales pitch is to allow facetime to work with an update 2 years after release(roadmap of 2015 suggest HF 2017). yet they pretend to say "we have listened to our customers and we will give them facetime with the new iphone"
then going on a propoganda mission trying to get users to not use samsung videocalls. saying that it cloggs up the mobile 4g network and has many other doomsday scenario's. while iphone is letting people send smilies in 2016 as a reduced way of expressing peoples facial expressions, and telling people that sendin texts(offchain) is better than videocalls because people can show their emotions using only 100bytes(100character messages) instead of 3mb a minute video.

be honest people, would you be ok if iphone said that you should only use text messages and they wont have facetime available for 2 years.
imagine if skype wanted to only be a text messenger for 2 years.
imagine it twitch, youtube wanted to turn into twitter for 2 years.

if bitcoin was the 4g network, we should not be blindly going with iphones agenda. bitcoin should not be dominated by one corporation

I like this post. Apologies for not commenting further.

It's a sad day Bruno, but unfortunately, Franky's analogy is typically moronic. You're not normally a moron. Please stop, I like you.

[RealPhotoshoper]

Bitcoinist just published an interview with the founder and director of the BitHope Foundation. When asked about the block size debate, he said the current discussions are "instrumental" to finding a solution. Normally we don't here things on issues like this from charities, what do you guys think about that?

Article link: www.bitcoinist.net/bithope-speaks-scalability-ngo/

bitcoin as payment is an option,can't be effort for something like charity,even some foundation do that,i'm sure they will trade it to money first for aim that charity,yes of course director of the BitHope Foundation will give that answer,not important to them for joining discussion about block size debate.