Bitcoin100 & archive.org

[Rassah]

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?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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~

[Technomage]

It's getting a bit complicated for my taste but if they are interested in something like that, then go for it. I'm okay with any decision. Do nothing, donate the whole wallet, try that... it's all okay.

But one more thing, before you actually send the bitcoins, if you send them, do remember to PM everyone who hasn't honored their pledge on the Bitcoin100 and wait a while. Not everyone has honored their pledge yet and we need to give people some time to send the money if we are actually using the wallet.

[BTCurious]

I think the opinion is leaning towards yes. I myself am in the middle, but won't mind either way.

Explaining the situation to June… it depends on how "casual" the conversations with June are, in general. It may seem a bit strange. Or not. Can't really judge.

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."

Strong! Now we're getting somewhere. This, or a variant of, idea is so strong, consider it stolen.

Great! That's what I wrote it for The "Every bit helps" is the core, I think. The words around it could maybe be improved upon.

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.

@sadpandatech: I truly like what you wrote here, but why do I continue to trip over 'giving going' each time I read it? I'm not an expert grammarian, therefore it's either grammatically correct or needs addressing. My effin' head can't get wrapped around that wording. Please correct me if I'm in error. Again, I truly like the post, and in no way trying to be hypercritical here.

Suggestion: Remove the "going" (Also some slight rewording):
By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option we incur no transfer fees, 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping the spirit of giving to those in need.

[sadpandatech]

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.

@sadpandatech: I truly like what you wrote here, but why do I continue to trip over 'giving going' each time I read it? I'm not an expert grammarian, therefore it's either grammatically correct or needs addressing. My effin' head can't get wrapped around that wording. Please correct me if I'm in error. Again, I truly like the post, and in no way trying to be hypercritical here.

Suggestion: Remove the "going" (Also some slight rewording):
By choosing Bitcoin as your donation option we incur no transfer fees, 100% of your donation is received in kind, keeping the spirit of giving to those in need.

Almost perfect, m8.  I agree, though the 'giving going' is grammatically acceptable it brings pause to the reader while they try and figure it out. I like your version but think it may need to add;

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


One of the more informed English speakers my be able to give better input than I, however.

Edit; My cheap grammar app suggests we also change the 'is received' from passive voice. Though I think that is really only fitting when you have 'subject,object' and may not apply here. If so then I suggest,

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


  Whatcha think?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

WOW! Effin' tight!

But one more thing, before you actually send the bitcoins, if you send them, do remember to PM everyone who hasn't honored their pledge on the Bitcoin100 and wait a while. Not everyone has honored their pledge yet and we need to give people some time to send the money if we are actually using the wallet.

All those who have pledge to date, hopefully did so with the understanding that they're under no obligation to donate to any particular cause. The pledging process is just a way to build a supporter list. As I've previous stated, as the list grows, the funding of the wallets will take care of itself. The initial goal was to have at least 100 BTC in any given wallet when the time arrives to transfer the funds to a willing charitable organization, regardless if not all members have honored their pledges or not. The notification process, e.g., a PM, comes into play when a charitable organization is about to be approached with our kind proposal and we need to make sure that the minimum amount we've set (at least 100 BTC) is available if they agree to our generous offer. Also, if we're so close, I may jump in and donate a small difference so that the 100 BTC is immediately made available for transfer, thus standing by our word.

Here's how it would work in real life:

A wallet currently has only 91 BTC in it. A charitable organization has been approached with our idea. At the same time, supporters have been made aware of this and are asked to honor their pledges. The CO gets back in touch with us stating their game. They did exactly what we desire and now it's time to transfer no less than 100 BTC from our wallet to their's. But we don't have the full amount. We're currently short. We can't afford to tell them to wait for the rest after saying what we're going to do, then don't do it. That's where I step in. I see we're 9 BTC short. I donate that 9 BTC. BAM! We're there. Transfers the funds, Rassah (or Roger Ver, if out of pocket). A new pool is started using the same wallet address and already seeded with 1 BTC from archive.org's wallet, which we control, plus 1 BTC from me, plus several others within the first hour of the starting of the new pool.

If this current wallet was needed for transfer now, it still lacks 9 BTC. Well, it did lack 9 BTC, until I stepped in. It's at 100 BTC now, available for transfer, thereby holding up our end of the bargain. Take a look: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac

~Bruno~

PS: I consider doing all this as fun. But I believe that theymos tricked me into creating Bitcoin100 so that I would have something else to do besides posting images all over his damn forum.  Have I also mentioned lately that I miss Nikki the Bitch? 

[paraipan]

awesome management Phinnaeus Gage you really got the ball rolling  

Regarding the archive.org, i'm still a little confused by all the events. CoinLab posted the link to a thread announcing archive.org already taking bitcoin donations after some member of our forum had posted comments on their blog regarding bitcoin. Seems like it caught their attention. I may be obvious on this but not even one Bitcoin100 pledger or spokesman had something to do with them doing that. We didn't see any emails made public either.
I think we should get some real work done on charities less wiling to accept bitcoin donations, not taking any credit in the process on those we didn't do nothing.

[RandyFolds]

awesome management Phinnaeus Gage you really got the ball rolling  

Regarding the archive.org, i'm still a little confused by all the events. CoinLab posted the link to a thread announcing archive.org already taking bitcoin donations after some member of our forum had posted comments on their blog regarding bitcoin. Seems like it caught their attention. I may be obvious on this but not even one Bitcoin100 pledger or spokesman had something to do with them doing that. We didn't see any emails made public either.
I think we should get some real work done on charities less wiling to accept bitcoin donations, not taking any credit in the process on those we didn't do nothing.

I agree that we should be using these stacked wallets as a dangling carrot for groups to begin accepting bitcoin, but I am rather indifferent to where this first one goes. I think Phinnaeus started a good thing, and it'll keep chugging along as more people discover it. Archive.org is already raking it in at a decent clip. It'll be great to point at them and say, "Look how well it's working for them!". Whether this first wallet goes to them or not, the point will be made.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

awesome management Phinnaeus Gage you really got the ball rolling  

Regarding the archive.org, i'm still a little confused by all the events. CoinLab posted the link to a thread announcing archive.org already taking bitcoin donations after some member of our forum had posted comments on their blog regarding bitcoin. Seems like it caught their attention. I may be obvious on this but not even one Bitcoin100 pledger or spokesman had something to do with them doing that. We didn't see any emails made public either.
I think we should get some real work done on charities less wiling to accept bitcoin donations, not taking any credit in the process on those we didn't do nothing.

Awesome management? Hell, I'm faking it as I go along! I'm just addressing issues with as much common sense I can muster up. The events leading up to the archive.org issue just happened to fall in place within the same time frame that Bitcoin100 was developing a footing. Then the two separate events merged. I can't wait till further down the road when an even more important issue arises, thereby taxing my negotiating skills. Either way, there's always a solution! Remember, I started this as a brainfart, but now enjoying the ride.

~Bruno~

[Bitcoin 100]

I'm commenting on this thread to show off bring attention to my new user name with its spiffy avatar, and to vote opposite of what the user name Phinnaeus Gage voted, thereby remaining neutral as far as the polling is concerned. I'll be using this account primarily for Bitcoin100 related topics, but still use Phinnaeus Gage to piss off theymos for all other off topics.

Has anybody recontacted June, or should we proceed with my latest suggestion? All options are still open for discussion, for my idea's not written in stone, though it has some support.

~Bruno~

[Bitcoin 100]

Has archive.org converted their batch of donations into fiat and, if so, where can one find that info on blockexplorer? The reason for asking is that it looks like the wallet address is starting anew. We would love to have a record of that amassing of funds in such a short period of time to show to future prospects (charitable organizations).

[BurtW]

As near as we can tell they have not cashed in any of their BTC yet:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r

They currently have 358.85734879 BTC.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

As near as we can tell they have not cashed in any of their BTC yet:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r

They currently have 358.85734879 BTC.

My mistake! I must have clicked a different link of which I thought their address was addressed.

[BTCurious]

The different link was most likely the address with the bitcoinbrew fund. You know, the Coffee For Charity project

[Bitcoin 100]

The different link was most likely the address with the bitcoinbrew fund. You know, the Coffee For Charity project

This is odd! The link I provided above, was the one I was in reference to. I had no other blockexplorer tab/page open, hence the concern, then post. Taxing my memory, it showed something like 2.xxxxxx as the final balance. The coffee address is now at 1 with 2 BTC donated, one of which is clearly my donation. This is no biggie, on my part, just odd.

But I'm still in search of an answer to my question.

Once the funds are transferred out of an address to another, is there a way to track where it goes/went next? I'm well versed on linking to the past transaction, well, maybe not that well, but I don't see where the Bitcoin is moved forward--again, only where it came from.

Maybe there's a blockexplorer 101 somewhere.

One more thing: I currently learned today that my friend, theymos, was the one who created the blockexplorer. Great work, theymos! That said, I take back everyone snide remark I made at his expense--but one. It'll be his job to figure out which one. 

~Bruno~

[Bitcoin 100]

What is to stop non-Bitcoin100 members from voting?

I believe I'm now better able to address your concern, the joint.

The answer:

None, during the developmental stage of Bitcoin100, that is. But, rest assured, when Bitcoin100 becomes more fully developed, only its supporters will have a say in any selection process.

They seem to be doing ok without the bitcoin100:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r

What kinda pisses me off about this, is that Bitcoin100 can't take much credit for this success, albeit partial credit may be warranted.

~Bruno~