Getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations - Community pledge

[glitch003]

I'm sorry guys, but I can't see this ending well for the bitcoin community publicity-wise.  Think about it: they will view this as holding a large donation hostage until they "meet our demands" of accepting the donation in our currency. 

We can't force them to accept bitcoin.  Just accept that they have a different opinion about bitcoin than we do, and the future will show who's opinion ends up being the most correct. 

Holding a large donation over their heads on the condition that they accept bitcoin is just a bad idea. 

I recommend you convert the coins to USD and send the USD no matter what, by a set date, say 1 month from now.  And instead of saying "we'll give you $x if you accept bitcoin!" we can say "look at how much bitcoin has raised for you so far!  if you just accepted it yourself, you could have so many more donations from people who are uncomfortable donating via a pass-through!"

You can still set a goal of 10k BTC if you want.  But give the donation no matter what.  YES, let's raise awareness about the campaign while it's going on.  YES, let's try and use it as a motivator for them to accept bitcoin in the future.  But let's NOT hold a donation hostage.  That situation almost never ends well.  Can you think of an instance where this has worked historically?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

We can't force them to accept bitcoin.

We can't force them to do anything. We can ask.

Just accept that they have a different opinion about bitcoin than we do, and the future will show who's opinion ends up being the most correct.

Opinions aren't set in stone. I don't know if anyone has ever had a serious discussion with them about why they should accept Bitcoin. Users randomly emailing them is not discussion. Erik Voorhees posting an aggressive response on his blog, designed to bring them to their knees, is not discussion.

I recommend you convert the coins to USD and send the USD no matter what, by a set date, say 1 month from now.

I cannot do that with already sent funds, since that would be a breach of contract.

And I am not inclined to start a new pledge with revised terms, since I believe in the terms set in the OP.

  And instead of saying "we'll give you $x if you accept bitcoin!" we can say "look at how much bitcoin has raised for you so far!  if you just accepted it yourself, you could have so many more donations from people who are uncomfortable donating via a pass-through!"

You can still set a goal of 10k BTC if you want.  But give the donation no matter what.  YES, let's raise awareness about the campaign while it's going on.  YES, let's try and use it as a motivator for them to accept bitcoin in the future.

We already have a pass-through. I do not see that it helped.

I asked Bitpay back in the day if they're making an effort to inform Wikimedia how much donations passed through them, but got no response.

But let's NOT hold a donation hostage. That situation almost never ends well.  Can you think of an instance where this has worked historically?

No, but I can't think of an instance when it failed, either.

For me this is like what we did with DOSBox, times 1000. Perhaps it is naive to compare things of such different scales, but I explained my thought process in the OP, and I find it reasonable.

[glitch003]

I recommend you convert the coins to USD and send the USD no matter what, by a set date, say 1 month from now.

I cannot do that with already sent funds, since that would be a breach of contract.

And I am not inclined to start a new pledge with revised terms, since I believe in the terms set in the OP.

Interesting.  What will you do with the funds if the goal is never reached?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I recommend you convert the coins to USD and send the USD no matter what, by a set date, say 1 month from now.

I cannot do that with already sent funds, since that would be a breach of contract.

And I am not inclined to start a new pledge with revised terms, since I believe in the terms set in the OP.

Interesting.  What will you do with the funds if the goal is never reached?

They will stay right where they are (unless I have to move them in their entirety to another address for security purposes).

The "goal" is that Wikimedia will accept Bitcoin donations. I don't find it plausible it will never happen, regardless of reaching any pledge targets.

[glitch003]

I recommend you convert the coins to USD and send the USD no matter what, by a set date, say 1 month from now.

I cannot do that with already sent funds, since that would be a breach of contract.

And I am not inclined to start a new pledge with revised terms, since I believe in the terms set in the OP.

Interesting.  What will you do with the funds if the goal is never reached?

They will stay right where they are (unless I have to move them in their entirety to another address for security purposes).

The "goal" is that Wikimedia will accept Bitcoin donations. I don't find it plausible it will never happen, regardless of reaching any pledge targets.

So if Wikimedia never accepts bitcoin donations (or does so in the very distant future), the funds fall away into relative obscurity.  Once everyone has forgotten about them, you're free to do with them as you wish. 

It's intriguing that you're taking this route rather than say automatically refunding donators if a year has passed with no progress towards Wikimedia accepting bitcoin donations.  All you have to do is track who donates what and ask for a refund address. 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

So if Wikimedia never accepts bitcoin donations (or does so in the very distant future), the funds fall away into relative obscurity.  Once everyone has forgotten about them, you're free to do with them as you wish.

It takes just one person to point to this thread to prove I have stolen funds. Do you really think there is any chance everyone will just forget about this - ever?

It's intriguing that you're taking this route rather than say automatically refunding donators if a year has passed with no progress towards Wikimedia accepting bitcoin donations.  All you have to do is track who donates what and ask for a refund address.

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

Also, it is better to be in it for the long haul, collecting more funds over time, than to quit and start over if the first time it doesn't succeed.

[justusranvier]

It's intriguing that you're taking this route rather than say automatically refunding donators if a year has passed with no progress towards Wikimedia accepting bitcoin donations.  All you have to do is track who donates what and ask for a refund address.

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

Surely there's some clever way to use nLockTime to make a contract that will accomplish this automatically?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

It's intriguing that you're taking this route rather than say automatically refunding donators if a year has passed with no progress towards Wikimedia accepting bitcoin donations.  All you have to do is track who donates what and ask for a refund address.

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

Surely there's some clever way to use nLockTime to make a contract that will accomplish this automatically?

Creating nLockTime transactions isn't exactly a widely available feature.

[glitch003]

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

If only there was some way to easily automate this type of thing.  Like a way to I dunno, tell a computer what to do?  Maybe some type of "code" that the computer could understand.  And we could have a base for storing all the data, a "database" if you will.  I bet millions of people all over the world could use such things to turn "logistics nightmares" into solved problems. 

Heck, maybe someday someone could even create a currency of sorts using these tools and solve the "logistics nightmare" of tracking hundreds of transactions per day.

We can dream.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

If only there was some way to easily automate this type of thing.  Like a way to I dunno, tell a computer what to do?  Maybe some type of "code" that the computer could understand.  And we could have a base for storing all the data, a "database" if you will.  I bet millions of people all over the world could use such things to turn "logistics nightmares" into solved problems.  

Heck, maybe someday someone could even create a currency of sorts using these tools and solve the "logistics nightmare" of tracking hundreds of transactions per day.

We can dream.

Setting up such a website and securing it properly is at least a day's work if I were to do it, or several hours by someone more proficient in such matters (volunteers? Anyone?). Not that much in the grand scheme of things, but definitely time that could have been used for better purposes.

The result would be a system that is more troublesome for donators (instead of choosing a treasurer and sending to a simple public address, they'd need to fill a form on an external website and send to a unique address) and much harder to audit - instead of a single address per treasurer, which can be viewed for total amount collected and activity, funds are scattered among addresses. And the chance of loss or theft of funds would be higher.

KISS.

[glitch003]

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

If only there was some way to easily automate this type of thing.  Like a way to I dunno, tell a computer what to do?  Maybe some type of "code" that the computer could understand.  And we could have a base for storing all the data, a "database" if you will.  I bet millions of people all over the world could use such things to turn "logistics nightmares" into solved problems.  

Heck, maybe someday someone could even create a currency of sorts using these tools and solve the "logistics nightmare" of tracking hundreds of transactions per day.

We can dream.

Setting up such a website and securing it properly is at least a day's work if I were to do it, or several hours by someone more proficient in such matters (volunteers? Anyone?). Not that much in the grand scheme of things, but definitely time that could have been used for better purposes.

Honestly, you're right about that.  I forget sometimes that not everyone is a programmer like me.  If I had more time on my hands right now I'd volunteer to make a site like this, because it could be really useful in a lot of ways.  But just like you, I don't have the time, and so it's really not my place to criticize you in this regard.  So, I apologize for being a bit of a jerk about it.

I still think that holding a donation "ransom" is a bad idea, but I respect that you're trying to organize an effort to get Wikipedia to change their ways instead of just emailing them and giving up like everyone else.  I definitely hope that you achieve your goal! 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Well the hardest part is going to prove the passing of the private key.

2.) At 1000 BTC the private key to the above address will be released to an appointed Wikipedia donation representative.
3.) Funds may continue to be donated to the same address.
4.) Wikipedia has the exclusive right of ownership to continue withdrawing donated funds from the same address.
5.) No stipulations for acceptance. Take it or leave it, the private key belongs to them now.

But like I said, good luck proving that OP passed the private keys to the Wikipedia donation representative.

The private key is not going to be given to Wikimedia. (I mean, when this ends they can have it if they want, but why would they want it?)

I will simply send the funds collected in the address to Wikipedia. Ideally they'll list a static public donation address and the blockchain will record that funds were sent to that address. Otherwise I'll request some confirmation from them that I sent the funds.

Of course once this happens any future funds should be donated to Wikimedia directly rather than through any of our treasurers.

Not only that but didn't they already go on the record and say they didn't want to accept Bitcoins?

They said many things. We want to convince them to change their mind...

Did you read the OP?

[scotjam]

LOL

This definitely should be via an address controlled by JohnK, not by Meni. No offence Meni, but JohnK is very well known on here, and very trustworthy, and I sure as heck wouldn't trust someone who was planning to hold my coins in a wallet address he / she controlled for an indeterminate amount of time.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes - how could you ever be shown to be a scammer if there is no committed time for you to donate (given that wikimedia has no current plans to accept bitcoin)?

So if Wikimedia never accepts bitcoin donations (or does so in the very distant future), the funds fall away into relative obscurity.  Once everyone has forgotten about them, you're free to do with them as you wish.

It takes just one person to point to this thread to prove I have stolen funds. Do you really think there is any chance everyone will just forget about this - ever?

It's intriguing that you're taking this route rather than say automatically refunding donators if a year has passed with no progress towards Wikimedia accepting bitcoin donations.  All you have to do is track who donates what and ask for a refund address.

That's a logistics nightmare and discourages small donations.

Also, it is better to be in it for the long haul, collecting more funds over time, than to quit and start over if the first time it doesn't succeed.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

No offence Meni, but JohnK is very well known on here, and very trustworthy,

I'm very well known on here, and very trustworthy.

This definitely should be via an address controlled by JohnK, not by Meni.

All due respect to John K but

1. Why do you think it is a good policy to trust a single person with everything? There are many people here with solid reputations, if you always go to the same person and he's sitting on 1000's of BTC, how sure are you his reputation is worth more than that?

2. Why would he even agree? In his usual escrow deals, he holds funds for a limited amount of time and takes a fee for it. Here he would hold funds for an indefinite period of time and get nothing for it - and it would be another liability in addition to all his others. I'm enthusiastic about starting the dialogue with Wikimedia and believe in the role of a pledge in this, so I'm willing to do it, despite all the risks and stress. Would he?

Anyway, after discussion with some people here I understand that the importance of the pledge is not as big as I originally thought, which is why I didn't push this further. But seeing that people are still hung up on this, I've contacted John to see if he's interested.

and I sure as heck wouldn't trust someone who was planning to hold my coins in a wallet address he / she controlled for an indeterminate amount of time.

Why not? That's the most effective approach, so that's my plan.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes - how could you ever be shown to be a scammer if there is no committed time for you to donate (given that wikimedia has no current plans to accept bitcoin)?

If either
1. Wikipedia doesn't accept donations and I move the coins (to anything other than an agreed-upon new collection address)
2. Wikipedia accepts donations and I don't donate them.
For #1, it wouldn't be a very good scam if I'm holding coins and can never do anything with them. And I'm hoping it won't take long until they accept it.

[scotjam]

No offence Meni, but JohnK is very well known on here, and very trustworthy,

I'm very well known on here, and very trustworthy.

This definitely should be via an address controlled by JohnK, not by Meni.

All due respect to John K but

1. Why do you think it is a good policy to trust a single person with everything? There are many people here with solid reputations, if you always go to the same person and he's sitting on 1000's of BTC, how sure are you his reputation is worth more than that?

2. Why would he even agree? In his usual escrow deals, he holds funds for a limited amount of time and takes a fee for it. Here he would hold funds for an indefinite period of time and get nothing for it - and it would be another liability in addition to all his others. I'm enthusiastic about starting the dialogue with Wikimedia and believe in the role of a pledge in this, so I'm willing to do it, despite all the risks and stress. Would he?

Anyway, after discussion with some people here I understand that the importance of the pledge is not as big as I originally thought, which is why I didn't push this further. But seeing that people are still hung up on this, I've contacted John to see if he's interested.

and I sure as heck wouldn't trust someone who was planning to hold my coins in a wallet address he / she controlled for an indeterminate amount of time.

Why not? That's the most effective approach, so that's my plan.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes - how could you ever be shown to be a scammer if there is no committed time for you to donate (given that wikimedia has no current plans to accept bitcoin)?

If either
1. Wikipedia doesn't accept donations and I move the coins (to anything other than an agreed-upon new collection address)
2. Wikipedia accepts donations and I don't donate them.
For #1, it wouldn't be a very good scam if I'm holding coins and can never do anything with them. And I'm hoping it won't take long until they accept it.

Not by any means an outright endorsement, but I just wanted to counteract some of the skeptical tone of my previous post - I hadn't spent the time to read up, just saw a thread saying "give me your money" (with no proof of credibility) and a bunch of punters saying "ok". To save other doubters from doing their own basic research:
He has done some good stuff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121314.20
It looks like he has done this before and succeeded https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4711.20
But keep in mind he has his doubters (like just about everyone else) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113369.0

So I think he has good intentions, but I also think it's a terrible idea to send money somewhere without a clear explanation of what will happen in various contingency situations (wikimedia outright refuses to accept, wikimedia takes forever to accept, wikimedia offers to accept "privately" without publishing a bitcoin address on their site.... and other situations you might think of). Just my 2 cents.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

So I think he has good intentions, but I also think it's a terrible idea to send money somewhere without a clear explanation of what will happen in various contingency situations

That's good advice, which is why I spend time writing lengthy OPs and engaging in discussion with commenters. As has been explained already,

(wikimedia outright refuses to accept,

We wait until they no longer refuse.

wikimedia takes forever to accept,

We continue waiting. Of course, this makes this unattractive to someone who believes it's likely it will take many years.

wikimedia offers to accept "privately" without publishing a bitcoin address on their site....

There needs to be an official, public indication that they're accepting Bitcoin donations (or a private statement that they'd like to use funds to research this possibility). This needn't necessarily be in the form of publishing a Bitcoin address, e.g. if they want to use a payment processor.

and other situations you might think of

Think of situations and I'll clarify what will be done.

[knight22]

Why not sending the bitcoins directly on twitter via Pikapay?

https://twitter.com/Wikimedia

Or even better, directly to Jimmy Wales!

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales



 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Why not sending the bitcoins directly on twitter via Pikapay?

https://twitter.com/Wikimedia

Or even better, directly to Jimmy Wales!

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales

I'm not sure they're allowed to accept donations this way. And AFAIK this (unlike Bitpay's proxy) doesn't automate conversion to USD, which they need.

Also, we want them to officially accept Bitcoin donations.

[knight22]

Why not sending the bitcoins directly on twitter via Pikapay?

https://twitter.com/Wikimedia

Or even better, directly to Jimmy Wales!

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales

I'm not sure they're allowed to accept donations this way. And AFAIK this (unlike Bitpay's proxy) doesn't automate conversion to USD, which they need.

Also, we want them to officially accept Bitcoin donations.

Agree.
I think I'm gonna send a few bitcoins to Jimmy Wales that way though. Just to make him try and hopefully make him change his mind about bitcoin 

[jadair10]

Most of us will agree that having the Wikimedia foundation (known for operating Wikipedia) accept Bitcoin donations could be a very important milestone in Bitcoin's adoption. They are famous for having refused for a long time with obscure reasons, but I believe they are warming up to the idea, and that it's high time we take concrete action about it.

Why is Wikipedia accepting bitcoin so important? This detail needs to be quantified and qualified. Is there not any other lower hanging fruit than Wikipedia?

In a recent discussion on Quora, Jimmy Wales has stated a few reasons to reject Bitcoin donations, and surprisingly they were all quite tangible. By this point it is already assumed that the donations will be immediately converted to USD via a provider such as BitPay, to help with accounting and make it easier to use the funds. The main objections were:

1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.

This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about.

2. Adding more donation options is known to create "choice paralysis" and decrease the total amount donated. They have a process of A/B testing for measuring the effect of adding new options; this testing will increase the cost of even considering to add this option.

To this Jimmy suggested that they could add information about Bitcoin donations in a separate page not linked to from the main donations page. I find this to be a very acceptable compromise; we'll be able to donate, and we'll be able to tell people Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin donations.

3. Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do.

I believe this can be alleviated with proper framing, and that making this available only from an orphan page will further reduce the perceived impact.

It seems out of your list that item 3 is the real reason for their concern: "Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do."

Item 1: Apparently, we need to quantify how much "trouble" it is to accept money. I am serious. This not just an issue at Wikipedia but will be an issue for any charity/organization. Quantifying the "worth", well, what is the worth of Wikipedia? That is a "value judgement" about Wikipedia and is best left to each individual, but I can say, Wikipedia's worth is probably much greater than the amount of donations they receive. Don't get me wrong, I think a community pledge has its merits.

Item 2: "Choice paralysis"... a study should be conducted to quantify this claim; possibly a similar study has already been conducted and has been published somewhere. But on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia does not worry too much about this as they already except payments through moneybookers.com (Skrill). In other words, this argument is a smoke screen. As a community, we should incur the cost of this study (i.e., testing), not Wikipedia. And this study should be unbiased and published appropriately.

Item 3: Being switzerland is just good policy... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it. And you may never really know the real reason why. It may be that buying Linden dollars on Second Life with real money makes some people's stomachs churn.

It may be more valuable to target lower hanging fruit and use the resources on conducting studies to prove our point.

As for Wikipedia, I proposed a different approach here... which is basically to use the fundamentals of Wikipedia (i.e., to document history) against itself approach. We can not put Wikipedia in the history of bitcoin right now, but we can put them in as the quintessential charity that does not accept bitcoin.

Thoughts?