Regardless of the outcome of the archive.org vote, I feel we can use them as an example of the potential of a bitcoin donation option. Something akin to
"One of the first organizations to accept bitcoin as a donation option, received 250 bitcoins in the first week, and X more in the month after. If you would accept bitcoin donations, our pool pledges to send at least 100 bitcoin in the first week, which is equivalent to X dollars.
To receive donations in bitcoin, a wallet needs to be set up -etc etc explanation or some link or w/e-. We prepared a handy button which instantly shows people you accept bitcoin."
Exactly. Had similar ideas in mind--used past results as an example ~ an easy button.
I would however refuse to donate to organisations such as Monsanto or the RIAA and for this reason alone simply cannot say "I pledge 1 BTC to any charity/organisation which adds a Bitcoin donation option".
Neither Monsanto nor the RIAA are non-profit organizations.
Quite the opposite actually
True that. I was just giving extreme examples. Basically, I'm happy for my pledged bitcoins to go practically anyway as a promotion of Bitcoin itself but even with a quantifier of "charitable organisation" or "non-profit organisation" I simply cannot say that "I will donate to anyone".
What I can do is send 99 BTC (I've sent 1 already) to the Bitcoin100 with the understanding that they (Phinnaeus Gage and/or those he appoints) will give me 3 days notice by e-mail of any organisation they want to fund so I have a short window to veto for my funds if necessary. I'll probably get back a positive response quickly enough but if I don't respond to the e-mail within 3 days then the funds can be used as needed. This would provide some liquidity which would help Bitcoin100 support charitable organisations with short notice.
PM me if you're interested Phinnaeus.
I will PM you after posting this post with a unique solution.
Regardless of the outcome of the archive.org vote, I feel we can use them as an example of the potential of a bitcoin donation option. Something akin to
"One of the first organizations to accept bitcoin as a donation option, received 250 bitcoins in the first week, and X more in the month after. If you would accept bitcoin donations, our pool pledges to send at least 100 bitcoin in the first week, which is equivalent to X dollars.
To receive donations in bitcoin, a wallet needs to be set up -etc etc explanation or some link or w/e-. We prepared a handy button which instantly shows people you accept bitcoin."
One of the first? I guess that's relative.
Yep!
I suggest we restart the poll regarding using our first wallet to fund archive.org. I originally voted no, but they actually changed the location of the donation link, probably in part thanks to my own efforts as well. I was one of the people who contacted them yesterday about this. I would now support spending the first wallet to archive.org.
I addressed this in the other thread:
Regardless on what the final vote is this poll, it'll should only be used a bellwether in our determination, now that the situation has changed somewhat. We can easily use the poll results, coupled with the sentiment expressed here and the other thread, to resolve this issue.
~~~
I suggest we restart the poll regarding using our first wallet to fund archive.org. I originally voted no, but they actually changed the location of the donation link, probably in part thanks to my own efforts as well. I was one of the people who contacted them yesterday about this. I would now support spending the first wallet to archive.org.
I would like to change my vote to no. I did not understand they did not get 100% of the money I just sent them... It is greater than the 2% on their page for "fundraising". Why support something that is less efficient than cash?
Edit: Seems like I did not fully understand something. Ignore my post please.
Glad that this got resolved with the help of other user's posts directly following your concern.
(I'll refrain from quoting those posts here to avoid clutter)I'm really not sure what to think of this. Ideally we should only use the wallets when we ask an organization to add Bitcoin as a donation method but I think we can make exceptions. It's just one wallet out of many to come. This does not mean we should splash around with the money, I've been adamant about this before. But archive.org happens to be a major site and they have shown great support for Bitcoin and many of us who are part of the Bitcoin100, have been supporting them separately already.
So in conclusion I'm quite okay with any decision but it's also important to remember that there are added benefits for this. Archive.org has already raised quite a nice sum of bitcoins, but this is not an incentive to not donate more, on the contrary. The more we get and the faster we do it, the better it is for publicity value. We can show everyone that there is a good amount of money in the Bitcoin economy and it is worth it to add it as a donation method.
Whatever we do, we should restart the poll ASAP and get a decision today.
The following is what I proposed as the solution:
I've mention earlier, reaching out to June at archive.org and laying our position totally on the line. The last thing we would want from them is WTF. I'm sure that they're overwhelm with the response, to date, that has transpired in such a short period of time. She just may say to us to let the current funded wallet go to a more worthy organization as their goodwill effort to funding a needy charity. We don't know till we ask. That said, who here has been in contact with June? (sorry for not researching this myself, but tryin' to get caught up here)
Oh, hey, another idea! Let them know what we are up to and what's going on, and see if, instead of receiving the Bitcoin100 donation, they would be willing to "pay it forward" and use one of their own new BTC they got from their huge windfall to be part of the Bitcoin100 themselves, donating 1 BTC to whatever charity we pick next?
I had to read this several times to figure out what you're idea consist of. Let me see if I figured it out correctly.
Instead of them accepting the funds from the current wallet, the funds are put into another wallet in their name, in which is controlled by Bitcoin100, taking from that newly created wallet only 1 BTC as seed money for each subsequent pool. It's done in their name of which will be on the contributor's list.
If I am correct, I'll match 1 BTC to their 1 BTC each time a new pool is created. Now, if we had one more person pledge the same match under these conditions, thus sweetening the pot, we may have a wiener.
How close are we to resolving this issue, now?
The way I understood your idea, coupled with the way I restated it, would not only work, but it may not even be necessary to ask them if that's okay. We simply fully tell tell them what transpired and how we handled it. It's not like they're waiting for the current funded wallet to be donated to them, even if they're aware of its existence. I'm not trying to hide anything from them, either, with that statement.
I live by the old adage, 'there's always a solution'.
Thoughts?
~Bruno~
~~~~
I agree with BitcoinPorn that the main purpose of Bitcoin100 is to promote Bitcoin by giving charities incentive to accept it, not to simply donate to charities. Archive.org put up a Bitcoin donation address, and received numerous donations in return. I believe that our Bitcoin100 funds are limited (note how many were only able to pledge 1), and should not be spent casually, and that donating them to archive.org will not serve their intended purpose. As far as i know, these funds have not been promised to anyone yet, and I suspect archive.org's acceptance of Bitcoin will not be influenced by any decision Bitcoin100 makes.
That said, I will abstain from any actual voting, and will send the funds wherever I am asked to.
The current wallet is not, nor has been, promised to any entity thus far.
It's quite possible that archive.org doesn't have a clue as to what is being discussed here in reference to them and
Bitcoin100.
As far as not being able to pledge more than 1 BTC, that is not the case. I've stated that it's best to pledge no less than 1 BTC, eliminating decimals being my thinking, and with no max on how many one wishes to pledge. The 1 BTC requested pledge amount is not written in stone.
I echo the sentiment in the rest of your post, BTW.
Sorry for the cross post but it appears not everyone is reading both threads:
In an ideal world here is what I would like to see:
Button [Donate through JustGive.org] we only get 95.5%
Button [Donate through PayPal] we only get 95% (or whatever the real number is)
Button [Donate using Bitcoins] we get 100% of your donation!
OR Donate using Bitcoins to 17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r and we get 100% of your donation!
this is not entirely true though, they get 100% BTC but then when they need to exchange it to USD or what have they there will be some % sliced off of that
PS folks, don't focus too much on publicity, otherwise it sounds like we're bunch of desperate telemarketers. good deeds will find their way into publicity by themselves, no need to make it in to a goal.I agree, I would like to think at least a few of us are pleased with the fact that we can help good causes
while raising awareness for bitcoin. Raising awareness is just the extra icing on the cake.
+1
I just realized I have a bunch of BTC sitting in tradehill (yeah, I know...bad idea) so I initiated a transfer to myself and will do some honoring when that goes through. Now to find those goddamn flash drives...
One of these days, I'm going to figure you out. Until then, thank you kindly for all you efforts. Now answer the door. I think your pizza just arrived.
~Bruno~
