Bitcoin100 & archive.org

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. This is true for down the road, also, regarding the future releasing of funded wallets. I will only become voicetress if I discover something nefarious pertaining to any charitable organization that supporters of Bitcoin100 are about to fund.

[1714097657]

1714097657

[1714097657]

1714097657

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.

A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.

Here's what I propose. We reach out to June over at archive.org and lay our cards on the table, so to speak. We explain our dilemma to her and, perhaps, she'll offer up a kind solution. The folks over there seem to be very straight up with what they're doing, and I'm sure they fully understand what's in play here. We can provide her the links to the relative threads here on this forum for starters, then be very upfront with her. Hold nothing back. My guess is that after a quick exchange of emails, this issue should be resolved.

Thoughts?

~Bruno~

[sadpandatech]

 I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to its guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.

  I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'.  Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?

Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.


   Cheers,
    Derek

[finway]

No, i never used it.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to it's guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.

  I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'.  Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?

Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.

   Cheers,
    Derek

Possibly seen on a future charitable organization's donation page:

By choosing Bitcoin as a donation option, we incur no transfer fees, therefore 100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.

A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.

You mean "You could have at least spelled ONE word incorrectly."
If it's any consolation, FF's spellchecker doesn't agree that "incentivize" and "counterintuitive" are words. It's wrong, of course.

As long as we're on a grammar tangent... I have for some time wanted to set up a webpage correcting some commonly misspelled words like "definitely", "lose", "its", "they're", "would have", etc. I figured I would give people the option to donate for my efforts using PayPal. But the likely donations would be small and PayPal's fixed fee would eat them all up. So I invented the concept of "randomized donations" which allows donating any given amount on average with much less transaction fees (at the cost of higher variance). But now with Bitcoin this is all moot, and I know a lot more now about setting up webpages, so I should probably go ahead with that...

Here's what I propose. We reach out to June over at archive.org and lay our cards on the table, so to speak. We explain our dilemma to her and, perhaps, she'll offer up a kind solution. The folks over there seem to be very straight up with what they're doing, and I'm sure they fully understand what's in play here. We can provide her the links to the relative threads here on this forum for starters, then be very upfront with her. Hold nothing back. My guess is that after a quick exchange of emails, this issue should be resolved.

Sure, sounds good.

100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).

Why go half-way? "All your donation are belong to us".

[Phinnaeus Gage]

No, i never used it.

As seen on their FAQ page:

Do you receive 100% of donations made through JustGive?

We deduct 4.5% of donations to cover the transaction costs.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.

A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.

You mean "You could have at least spelled ONE word incorrectly."
If it's any consolation, FF's spellchecker doesn't agree that "incentivize" and "counterintuitive" are words. It's wrong, of course.

As long as we're on a grammar tangent... I have for some time wanted to set up a webpage correcting some commonly misspelled words like "definitely", "lose", "its", "they're", "would have", etc. I figured I would give people the option to donate for my efforts using PayPal. But the likely donations would be small and PayPal's fixed fee would eat them all up. So I invented the concept of "randomized donations" which allows donating any given amount on average with much less transaction fees (at the cost of higher variance). But now with Bitcoin this is all moot, and I know a lot more now about setting up webpages, so I should probably go ahead with that...

Nice caught!  

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

I like the slogan!

Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!

[Meni Rosenfeld]

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.

Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!

"Donation". Say it right.

And I think "to us" is both more fitting and more true to the source.
Edit: The other way around. Should be "All Our Donation are Belong to You!".

[edd]

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.

Reminds me of The Oatmeal's Twitter Spelling Test Quiz.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.

Reminds me of The Oatmeal's Twitter Spelling Test Quiz.

I got "Look at the temperature Gage" wrong! So I emailed them and asked why.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.

Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.

Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!

"Donation". Say it right.

And I think "to us" is both more fitting and more true to the source.
Edit: The other way around. Should be "All Our Donation are Belong to You!".

I'm getting tired, hence the 's' error.

As far as the slogan goes (no, it's not going anywhere, but...), I envisioned it directed at the potential charitable organizations, emphasizing that everybody who donates Bitcoin to them, they receive 100% of those funds--no transfer fees. BTW, that slogan I came up with is just an idea, and no way am I trying to push that we use it, though it can be considered a talking point (do points talk?).

I'm tired and starting to type stupid. Consider this my last post of the night, unless I post another one.

~Bruno~

[BTCurious]

Voted "no". They already received over 250 bitcoin. At this point 100 bitcoin is less impressive, because the 250 in a week was impressive enough as it is.
Apart from that, I think bitcoin100 is more of a "x in need" kind of charity support, although I guess we could branch out to whatever we fancy.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

As far as the slogan goes (no, it's not going anywhere, but...), I envisioned it directed at the potential charitable organizations, emphasizing that everybody who donates Bitcoin to them, they receive 100% of those funds--no transfer fees.

Exactly. "All our donation (the donations collected through us, the Bitcoin100) are belong to you (the charity who keeps 100%)".

BTW, that slogan I came up with is just an idea, and no way am I trying to push that we use it, though it can be considered a talking point (do points talk?).

That can be used as a litmus test for choosing charities. If it crosses our minds to approach an organization with this slogan, it's probably not the kind of charity we are looking for.

[BTCurious]

archive.org's "Every bit helps" is nice too. "Bitcoin donations: Every bit helps. With bitcoin you can donate amounts as small as a cent, without any middle man profiting from your gift."

[sadpandatech]

I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to it's guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.

  I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'.  Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?

Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.

   Cheers,
    Derek

Possibly seen on a future charitable organization's donation page:

By choosing Bitcoin as a donation option, we incur no transfer fees, therefore 100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).

By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option, we incur no transfer fees. Therefore 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping the spirit of giving going to those in need.

[chunglam]

Voted "no". I would suggest using this wallet to guaranteed 100 BTC fund in the first week after a charity start accepting Bitcoin.

[Technomage]

We should restart this vote now that archive.org decided to change the position of the Bitcoin donation link. This changes things in my mind.

[BitcoinPorn]

A million times yes.  Archive.org is the perfect foundation to use as a focus for the Bitcoin100.  No better start than a site that does nothing more than ensure we cannot forget or change history.   I vote my first pledge goes to Archive.org.