Bitcoin 100: Developed Specifically for Non-Profits

[gsan]

I pledge 1 coin per charity, up to a maximum of 50 coins.

Maybe we can learn a few things from the DOSBox pledge which was sort of similar but on a much smaller scale. That was essentially a one-man crew with a hobby project and without any real legal obligation, and the persuasion process was far from "100 BTC you say? Of course I'll accept bitcoins now!".

They accepted it though, and the address is still there…

I also thought of the DOSBox pledge when I read the OP. The communication was somewhat disappointing at the time.

I certainly wouldn't stand in front of the salvation army guys and say I've got money here but only if you use "this" currency.

Agreed, that sounds silly. How about we say: "There are people who want to donate to your cause, but don't want to have part of their money eaten by paypal and such. Bitcoin donations would allow them to donate arbitrary amounts, large or small, without creditcards or fees. We've already collected some money in Bitcoins for you guys, can you set up a Bitcoin address so future donations could go directly to you?"

This one is much better.

[1715188531]

1715188531

[Vince Torres]

I'll pledge.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Thank you, gsan and Vince Torres, for pledging to, and being the part of, the Bitcoin100.

[chunglam]

Count me in, 1 coin per charity, at least 10 coins.

[fizzisist]

Saw that you put me down for 1 BTC, but I'll gladly pledge more than that. At least 1 to each of the ones you show on your list.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Saw that you put me down for 1 BTC, but I'll gladly pledge more than that. At least 1 to each of the ones you show on your list.

Thank you kindly, fizzisist. Updated.

Count me in, 1 coin per charity, at least 10 coins.

Dittos to, chunglam. The OP has been updated to reflect the above mentioned change and this additional pledge.

[lamec]

i'm in until my funds permit.

great idea.

AND YES, i think it is right to slightly force the hand on organizations like wiki not accepting it. if they really are in need, they shouldn't be picky.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Maybe we can learn a few things from the DOSBox pledge which was sort of similar but on a much smaller scale. That was essentially a one-man crew with a hobby project and without any real legal obligation, and the persuasion process was far from "100 BTC you say? Of course I'll accept bitcoins now!".

They accepted it though, and the address is still there…

I also thought of the DOSBox pledge when I read the OP. The communication was somewhat disappointing at the time.

What do you mean?

[Jan]

Count me in.

[hashman]

Great idea!  I pledge minimum 50 coins.  Not sure who picks the list though, i might not donate to all the orgs. 
 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Thank you kindly, lamec & Jan & hashman, for pledging. The list on the OP has been updated reflecting your respective pledge.

Great idea!  I pledge minimum 50 coins.  Not sure who picks the list though, i might not donate to all the orgs.  
  

The goal is for each member having control over what organization they want to contribute to. Though most are worthy causes, in their own right, I can even think of a few I would rather not contribute to.

[BitcoinBug]

I'm in too.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Hey! I'll personally pledge a couple Bitcoins Nice idea Bruno!
Unfortunately I think the reasons charities dislike Bitcoin donation is that they think it's illegal/scammy and they don't want association with it.

Quick though!

For sake of argument, let's say Wikipedia is a new idea and Bitcoin has been around for a few years with a proven track record. Jimmy Wales would be knockin' on the proverbial Bitcoin door asking how to get one of those Bitcoin donation buttons on his Wikipedia site. He would be expressing to us how his idea will change the world on how knowledge will be shared globally. How his pet project is open source and run by volunteers, but desires donations for R&D, servers, etc. I sincerely doubt we would reply with a thanks, but no thanks, for considering Bitcoin.

That said, there's an election year coming up, and many small names on their respected ballots are strapped for cash. To us, it shouldn't matter what political spectrum they embrace. What matters is getting the Bitcoin name plastered (for sake of a better word) on as many sites as possible. Damn the chicken and egg dilemma. In due time, sooner than later, the technology will be forced to catch up with the demand.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm in too.

Noted and updated, Bug. Thank you so kindly.

Bruno

[DeathAndTaxes]

What matters is getting the Bitcoin name plastered (for sake of a better word) on as many sites as possible.

Exactly it is building mindshare not marketshare.  Someone goes to a store and they see "checkout w/ bitcoin".  They don't have bitcoin.  The most curious user would search it google it, or follow a link.  Still most won't however if later they are on another site and see Bitcoin again and again and again and again they become more and more likely to investigate.

We even have the potential to win over skeptics.  Maybe someone made quick conclusion that Bitcoin is a scam/ponzi and didn't consider it further.  However the combination of time and usage can change that.  If 3 years later Bitcoin is still around and he notices more and more places are accepting it then maybe he decides to take a second look.

It is all about mindshare.  Why do you think facebook has that stupid "f" on everything in sight.  "Wow everyone uses facebook so I should too".  Most people are sheep.  Mindshare makes something new less scary.  The whole "if everyone is doing it then it must be good".

Convincing a charity or non-profit to accept Bitcoins should be easier than a business so they are a good place to build mindshare. Charities aren't selling anything, the risk of fraud is lower and they always need more donations.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

What matters is getting the Bitcoin name plastered (for sake of a better word) on as many sites as possible.

Exactly it is building mindshare not marketshare.  Someone goes to a store and they see "checkout w/ bitcoin".  They don't have bitcoin.  The most curious user would search it google it, or follow a link.  Still most won't however if later they are on another site and see Bitcoin again and again and again and again they become more and more likely to investigate.

We even have the potential to win over skeptics.  Maybe someone made quick conclusion that Bitcoin is a scam/ponzi and didn't consider it further.  However the combination of time and usage can change that.  If 3 years later Bitcoin is still around and he notices more and more places are accepting it then maybe he decides to take a second look.

It is all about mindshare.  Why do you think facebook has that stupid "f" on everything in sight.  "Wow everyone uses facebook so I should too".  Most people are sheep.  Mindshare makes something new less scary.  The whole "if everyone is doing it then it must be good".

Convincing a charity to accept Bitcoins should be easier than a business so they are a good place to build mindshare. Charities aren't selling anything.  The risk of fraud is lower and they always need money.

+11000101100011111101

Spot fuckin' on!!! (pardon my Swahili)

[Clark]

I'm down for 1 BTC per organization, up to 25.

[freequant]

I am in for 1BTC per charity.
I pledge an additional 100 BTC to the Red Cross and Unicef whenever they get onboard.

[beckspace]

I like the idea. I'm in. (1+)

[amazingrando]

I'm in too.  1 btc per organization for the first 20.