Bitcoin 100: Developed Specifically for Non-Profits

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Dmitry,

Please meet my friend Amy. She's the founder of the Primate Education Network, a young nonprofit dedicated to supporting teachers to save endangered monkeys, apes, chimps and the like around the world. PEN creates classroom training tools and resources to increase compassion and protection for primates in their natural habitats. Amy has spent much of her career working in Africa with great apes (gorillas?) and did a stint at the National Zoo. She's awesome and I know $1,000 would make a big difference to her.

Enthusiastically,

Frankie

Domain registered in 2012, and Wayback Machine for 2013 only. No 501(c)3.

Further discussion is warranted with this one, but seems to be a noble cause and probably deserving. I will go along with any decision made concerning them.

[1715037528]

1715037528

[1715037528]

1715037528

[1715037528]

1715037528

[1715037528]

1715037528

[1715037528]

1715037528

[1715037528]

1715037528

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Dmitry,

Please meet my friend Edan-- he's on the board of a nonprofit called ByteBack that is dedicated to providing computer training to low income residents of Washington D.C. to improve their economic opportunities. Also cc'ed is ByteBack's development director, Cristina Moscoso.

Cristina,

My friend Dmitry runs a project called BitCoin100 that connects donors with charities that agree to accept BitCoins as a currency on their donations page. As an incentive, BitCoin100 donates $1,000 worth to the selected charity. Check out their site and let Dmitry know if you have any questions.

Good luck,

Frankie

This one's a tad trickier due to: view-source:http://byteback.org/

<meta name='robots' content='noindex,nofollow' />

Hence, archive.org has no record of them, albeit they've been registered since 1997 according to Godaddy.

Domain Name: BYTEBACK.ORG
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2012-08-30 21:52:06
Creation Date: 1997-09-15 04:00:00

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://byteback.org

http://www.linkedin.com/company/byte-back

About Byte Back, Inc.

Byte Back, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization (FEIN 52-2061398) that provides computer literacy and employment readiness skills to underserved communities throughout Washington D.C. Our mission is to improve economic opportunities by providing computer and technology courses to low-income residents in D.C.. What we do is bridge the digital divide. There are many people in the D.C. community who lack access to digital communications, and who have yet to learn how to use a computer. In addition to providing free and low-cost computer courses for neighborhoods in D.C., we also teach advanced certification courses, enabling our students to enter the workforce with competitive and useful skills. We teach computer literacy classes at over a dozen locations throughout the city, at D.C. Public Libraries, at human service agencies, and at our own central office at Washington, D.C.

No info here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/byteback.org

Let's see if we can get more information from their camp so that we can shine a more positive one on them.

[edd]

Maybe we can have a second donation address for the bitcoin100 where people can send money to be used to promote the Bitcoin100, and reserve the original donation address for money to give to charities?

If people want to spend money to promote Bitcoin100, why not just have them spend the money directly? I'm ok with holding even more money, but I'm not sure if there's a need for it...

It may be time for a discussion about the future of Bitcoin100. How big do we want to get? What happens when we run out of charities, when every respectable organization has either accepted our BTC or said "No thanks"? Does the Bitcoin100 story end or do we start a new chapter?

I agree with Peter that the funds donated so far should be considered earmarked for charities only. Rassah, Phinnaeus and I are covering the minimal overhead expenses for Bitcoin100 out of our personal funds but if we begin accruing additional expenses it might be wise to keep everything as transparent as possible.

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit. It might be interesting to see how bitcoins and the blockchain may be used to allow our books to remain open to review by anyone and everyone. I for one would like to make a real effort to keep funds in a closed "bitcoin only" loop.

[Rassah]

New charity suggestion:

Would you consider donating to http://neuroethics.com/ if a BTC donation button was prominently displayed? It is a registered 501c3. Thanks!

Looks like part of the Transhumanism movement. Thoughts?

[Rassah]

How big do we want to get?

As big, or small, as our supporters want us to get?

What happens when we run out of charities, when every respectable organization has either accepted our BTC or said "No thanks"? Does the Bitcoin100 story end or do we start a new chapter?

We will likely never run out of charities. There are new ones popping up all the time. We may run out of money way before then though. When bitcoin is ubiquitous, and everyone uses it anyway, then we will end.

I agree with Peter that the funds donated so far should be considered earmarked for charities only. Rassah, Phinnaeus and I are covering the minimal overhead expenses for Bitcoin100 out of our personal funds but if we begin accruing additional expenses it might be wise to keep everything as transparent as possible.

We could set up a separate BTC account, I guess... Though I'm not sure how it would work exactly. It's not like we have revenues, and 100% of our income budget is for charities. Maybe we could post updates on things we need (like add spots and such) and have people donate to fund those specifically? Though that would require people to either donate twice, or choose between donating to our operating and our charity account. Another idea is to set up a % of future donations from a specific point to be spent on operating budget. I.e., all donations so far are charity only, and all donations starting on some day in the future will be split with 5% going to operating. We can then adjust the % as we need more or less.

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

It might be interesting to see how bitcoins and the blockchain may be used to allow our books to remain open to review by anyone and everyone. I for one would like to make a real effort to keep funds in a closed "bitcoin only" loop.

Of course. BTC100 money goes into the BTC100 address, and any time I spend anything from it, the change goes right back to the BTC100 address. That way, all money is kept in one place, and all transactions are trackable from one address. If we set up an operating account, I would set it up the exact same way, with 5% (e.g.) transfers coming in from the main BTC100 address, all change on expenses going right back to the operating account, and all expenses noted in the blockchain.info address transaction list.

[edd]

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

I'm sure we can readdress the 501(s)3 again at a later time if/when Bitcoin 100 grows to warrant such. Meanwhile, the funds collected and distributed through us is probably still below the radar, coupled with we have conducted ourselves in the most transparent way possible.

OTOH, we can easily take Bitcoin 100 to the next level, where we would be dealing with millions of dollars if we so desire. But, if we were to do such, it would take so much time to maintain that those in control would be expected to take a salary, albeit one much lower than what's doles out via other NPO's to their CEO/VPs/staff.

I sure the hell hope Rassah has been paying attention in his accounting/business classes.

New charity suggestion:

Would you consider donating to http://neuroethics.com/ if a BTC donation button was prominently displayed? It is a registered 501c3. Thanks!

Looks like part of the Transhumanism movement. Thoughts?

Everything looks fine with their org., but not sure if it's considered religious based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

[Rassah]

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

One issue with that: Bitcoin100 is not an American entity. I donate my time to it, and you, Bruno, and I are US citizens (dunno about edd), none of whom actually get a salary. Other people helping and volunteering are from other countries. So Bitcoin100 is really a web-based entity. One could argue that since I am running it, it is my personal thing, and I should do personal reporting of my own personal hobby project, specifically to make sure I'm not scamming with a fake "charity," but I don't claim to own Bitcoin100, am not in sole possession of the funds (others have the private key as well), and all activities are completely public, so there is nothing for me to scam or hide. This whole thing is one of those new tricky "global entity" things that many other international companies are struggling with... 

[Rassah]

OTOH, we can easily take Bitcoin 100 to the next level, where we would be dealing with millions of dollars if we so desire. But, if we were to do such, it would take so much time to maintain that those in control would be expected to take a salary, albeit one much lower than what's doles out via other NPO's to their CEO/VPs/staff.

You can? How? And yeah, once salaries enter the mix, governments are going to want to know how much we paid to whom, and "just look at blockchain.info" won't cut it.

I sure the hell hope Rassah has been paying attention in his accounting/business classes.

I'm getting a refresher, since I'm doing accounting for the Amsterdam conference

Everything looks fine with their org., but not sure if it's considered religious based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

I think transhumanism is more "Hey guys! Let's fuck with our DNA, pump ourselves full of chemicals, and stick computers in our brains, until we figure out how to live for ever!"

[Peter Lambert]

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

One issue with that: Bitcoin100 is not an American entity. I donate my time to it, and you, Bruno, and I are US citizens (dunno about edd), none of whom actually get a salary. Other people helping and volunteering are from other countries. So Bitcoin100 is really a web-based entity. One could argue that since I am running it, it is my personal thing, and I should do personal reporting of my own personal hobby project, specifically to make sure I'm not scamming with a fake "charity," but I don't claim to own Bitcoin100, am not in sole possession of the funds (others have the private key as well), and all activities are completely public, so there is nothing for me to scam or hide. This whole thing is one of those new tricky "global entity" things that many other international companies are struggling with... 

The problem that you will run into is that you claim not to own those funds, but nobody else claims ownership of them either. The government does not like things to be unowned, so it would make sense to form some sort of organization which would lay claim to those funds (and thus they would not need to be added to your personal income for tax purposes).

[Rassah]

Can I just claim that the funds are common, public property stored everywhere in the blockchain, and I'm just one of the people who knows how to get to them? 

I'm guessing no. It is trivially easy to set it up so that no one really owns it. I did mention I'm not the only one with the key. I'm just the one using it most.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Can I just claim that the funds are common, public property stored everywhere in the blockchain, and I'm just one of the people who knows how to get to them? 

I'm guessing no. It is trivially easy to set it up so that no one really owns it. I did mention I'm not the only one with the key. I'm just the one using it most.

For full disclosure, the only other person I'm aware of having the key is Roger Ver. It was set up at the onset (see OP of this thread) this way for the sole purpose of the proverbial hit-by-a-bus scenario. Edd or I do not have a key. I won't even know how to use one if I did. Rassah may have given another person (perhaps hubby) the key, but not for any nefarious purposes.

The funds are completely safe as they possibly can be in Rassah hands.

If Rassah were to operate an escrow service (maybe he already is), I would highly recommend using it. The dude comes across highly honest, albeit owning a funking coffee table.

[tom.hashemi]

If Rassah were to operate an escrow service (maybe he already is), I would highly recommend using it. The dude comes across highly honest, albeit owning a funking coffee table.

Seriously, what is this coffee table malarkey?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Seriously, what is this coffee table malarkey?

Two years ago, Rassah casually mentioned in some thread (pretty sure it was the infamous Pinkie Pie thread) owning a coffee table having a funky motif. I kinda made mention of it lightly, whereupon one or two others expanded upon it. Rassah posted (paraphrased), "What's this obsession with my coffee table?", whereupon I took the conversation to the next level and never let it go.

The art work on the table is beautiful, but not safe for work.

Hope that explains the running joke, bud.

[tom.hashemi]

The art work on the table is beautiful, but not safe for work.

Now that sounds intriguing... !

[keystroke]

Everything looks fine with their org., but not sure if it's considered religious based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

I'm one of the founders -- is there anything I can help with?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Everything looks fine with their org., but not sure if it's considered religious based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

I'm one of the founders -- is there anything I can help with?

Hey, bud, yes! We need more clarification on http://neuroethics.com/ as you suggested to us below. Also, I'm curious as to why the link no longer works or was that a PM link via Rassah?

New charity suggestion:

Would you consider donating to http://neuroethics.com/ if a BTC donation button was prominently displayed? It is a registered 501c3. Thanks!

Looks like part of the Transhumanism movement. Thoughts?

Bitcoin 100 doesn't have a hard line in sand as to what ideas are funded, but there is one for religious and political organizations. A majority of our funds were amassed based on that premise, thus not wanting to renege on our commitment.

Any insight would help us make a more informed decision as to whether funding http://neuroethics.com/ is prudent.

Bruno Kucinskas

[keystroke]

Hey, bud, yes! We need more clarification on http://neuroethics.com/ as you suggested to us below. Also, I'm curious as to why the link no longer works or was that a PM link via Rassah?

Does the link no longer work for you? It should be up at www.neuroethics.com.

Below are the abstracts two talks given by David Pearce. The ideas discussed do not require any religious or political affiliation (e.g. they are fully compatible with atheism). Some of the terms are technical -- "zombies" is used in the philosophical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie rather than undead sense.

Are any other transhumanist charities accepting bitcoin? It seems to be a natural fit.

Will Humanity's Successors Also Be Our Descendants?

ABSTRACT

Accelerating technological progress leads some futurists to predict the imminent end of the human era and the dawn of posthuman superintelligence. But what is superintelligence? How does intelligence relate to sentience? What are the Explanatory Gap, Moravec's Paradox, and the Binding Problem? Will nonbiological machines ever be more than zombies?

This talk explores three different scenarios for the major evolutionary transition in prospect.

In the first scenario, biological humans will rewrite our genetic source code, recursively self-edit our own minds, and bootstrap our way to full-spectrum superintelligence. Mastery of our reward circuitry will deliver life based on information-sensitive gradients of bliss.

In the second, Kurzweilian scenario, cybernetic brain implants will enable humans to fuse our minds with artificial intelligence; and also allow humans to scan, digitise and "upload" ourselves into a less perishable substrate. In digital nirvana, the distinction between biological and nonbiological machines will effectively disappear.

In the third scenario, most closely associated with mathematician I.J. Good and The Singularity Institute, a combination of Moore's law and the advent of recursively self-improving software-based minds will culminate in an ultra-rapid Intelligence Explosion and an era of nonbiological superintelligence. Posthuman superintelligence may or may not be human-friendly.

How strong is the supporting evidence for each of these prophecies?

Singularity Hypotheses:
The BioIntelligence Explosion

ABSTRACT

Genetic change in biological humans is slow. Progress in digital computing is fast. Software run on serial, programmable digital computers is executed exponentially faster (cf. Moore's Law); it's copyable without limit; it runs on multiple substrates; and it can be rapidly edited, tested and debugged. Singularitarians like Ray Kurzweil or SIAI's Eliezer Yudkowsky prophesy that human programmers will soon be redundant because AI run on digital computers will undergo accelerating cycles of self-improvement (cf. Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns). Artificial, greater-than-human nonbiological intelligence will swiftly be succeeded by artificial posthuman superintelligence.

This talk examines, and then discounts, the prospect of a "robot rebellion". Biological humanity is on the brink of a Biointelligence Explosion. Humans are poised to exploit "narrow" or "weak" AI to enhance our own code in a positive feedback loop of mutual enhancement. Starting with individual genes, then clusters of genes, and eventually hundreds of genes and alternative splice variants, a host of recursively self-improving organic robots ("biohackers") will modify their own source code and modes of sentience: their senses, their moods, their motivation, their world-simulations, their cognitive apparatus and their default state of consciousness. As the era of open-source genetics unfolds, tomorrow's biohackers will use high-level gene editing tools, insertion vector applications, nonviral gene-editing kits, and user-friendly interfaces to add, delete, edit and customize their own legacy code in a positive feedback loop of cognitive and emotional enhancement. Recursively self-improving biological humans are going to bootstrap their way to full-spectrum superintelligence - and indescribable bliss.

[edd]

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit.

How come?

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

One issue with that: Bitcoin100 is not an American entity. I donate my time to it, and you, Bruno, and I are US citizens (dunno about edd), none of whom actually get a salary. Other people helping and volunteering are from other countries. So Bitcoin100 is really a web-based entity. One could argue that since I am running it, it is my personal thing, and I should do personal reporting of my own personal hobby project, specifically to make sure I'm not scamming with a fake "charity," but I don't claim to own Bitcoin100, am not in sole possession of the funds (others have the private key as well), and all activities are completely public, so there is nothing for me to scam or hide. This whole thing is one of those new tricky "global entity" things that many other international companies are struggling with... 

The problem that you will run into is that you claim not to own those funds, but nobody else claims ownership of them either. The government does not like things to be unowned, so it would make sense to form some sort of organization which would lay claim to those funds (and thus they would not need to be added to your personal income for tax purposes).

Even though Bitcoin100 is very loosely organized and probably falls under the category of "hobby" at the moment, I worry that using any funds to pay for services or purchase items might push us over some line (in the eyes of regulatory agencies). As you mention, BTC sent to the vanity address have thus far only been held on behalf of others until worthy charities have been chosen and I doubt any red flags have been raised as of yet.

I am also a US citizen, BTW.

[phelix]

What about donating to Ed Snowden? https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden