Just sent this message to wikipedia

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is still pretty small potatoes. Giving them to big charities is kinda like tipping with loose change. Save your Bitcoin for the unique things for which it was designed. Bitcoin will have its day and naysayers will one day regret not accepting them sooner.

[1713590536]

1713590536

[1713590536]

1713590536

[1713590536]

1713590536

[1713590536]

1713590536

[1713590536]

1713590536

[Bitcoin 100]

To those suggesting they are bitcoin haters or in favor of maintaining the status quo:

Give them a fucking break. It is their right to decide if and when they will accept bitcoins. "Watching with interest" is more than their duty. They, like anyone rational, will start accepting them in a heartbeat when they decide it is in their best interest to do so.

Bitcoin is still pretty small potatoes. Giving them to big charities is kinda like tipping with loose change. Save your Bitcoin for the unique things for which it was designed. Bitcoin will have its day and naysayers will one day regret not accepting them sooner.

After reading the two posts, quoted above, I say we move on. The energy used to try to revive a dead Bactrian camel would be better served on other Bitcoin related issues at hand.

[Boussac]

To those suggesting they are bitcoin haters or in favor of maintaining the status quo:

Give them a fucking break. It is their right to decide if and when they will accept bitcoins. "Watching with interest" is more than their duty. They, like anyone rational, will start accepting them in a heartbeat when they decide it is in their best interest to do so.

Your are right: I was a bit too harsh on them.

I guess my feelings towards wikipedia relate to some bad experience I had trying to propose an article and discovering I was dealing with a kind of anonymous, headless bureaucracy. However I will not assume it is always the case as most articles are very well edited.

They are up to a task that is not simple and they do provide a very useful service.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

To those suggesting they are bitcoin haters or in favor of maintaining the status quo:

Give them a fucking break. It is their right to decide if and when they will accept bitcoins. "Watching with interest" is more than their duty. They, like anyone rational, will start accepting them in a heartbeat when they decide it is in their best interest to do so.

Your are right: I was a bit too harsh on them.

I guess my feelings towards wikipedia relate to some bad experience I had trying to propose an article and discovering I was dealing with a kind of anonymous, headless bureaucracy. However I will not assume it is always the case as most articles are very well edited.

They are up to a task that is not simple and they do provide a very useful service.

But what if there were a campaign, of sorts, to donate exactly 1 BTC (valued up to $10 USD) to every one of the currently one million plus unpaid editors who desire Bitcoin? How disruptive would that be?

Currently unpaid for your volunteering efforts? Don't have to be--Bitcoin!

~Bruno~

[casascius]

But what if there were a campaign, of sorts, to donate exactly 1 BTC (valued up to $10 USD) to every one of the currently one million plus unpaid editors who desire Bitcoin? How disruptive would that be?

That would be pretty disruptive to Bitcoin, that's for sure... though perhaps in a positive way (price going up).  It would also be a disruption I think Wikipedia would find unwelcome.

Wikipedia would frown on it for the same reason they are against advertising.  It's already against the rules to accept paid engagements for writing or editing Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia would consider it non-kosher to even have editors put bitcoin addresses on their user pages.  That's because there's a reasonable fear that someone who suddenly started editing with a bias might see anonymous donations for doing so.  Every corporation would, instead of editing their own wikipedia article, would start donating anonymously to everyone who made edits in their favor in order to encourage more of it.  That would be real damage to Wikipedia, not worth a few extra donations.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

But what if there were a campaign, of sorts, to donate exactly 1 BTC (valued up to $10 USD) to every one of the currently one million plus unpaid editors who desire Bitcoin? How disruptive would that be?

That would be pretty disruptive to Bitcoin, that's for sure... though perhaps in a positive way (price going up).  It would also be a disruption I think Wikipedia would find unwelcome.

Wikipedia would frown on it for the same reason they are against advertising.  It's already against the rules to accept paid engagements for writing or editing Wikipedia.  I think Wikipedia would consider it non-kosher to even have editors put bitcoin addresses on their user pages.  That's because there's a reasonable fear that someone who suddenly started editing with a bias might see anonymous donations for doing so.  Every corporation would, instead of editing their own wikipedia article, would start donating anonymously to everyone who made edits in their favor in order to encourage more of it.  That would be real damage to Wikipedia, not worth a few extra donations.

A very informative post, casascius. Makes it pretty damn hard for me to punch holes in your logic, so I won't even attempt to try such. Thank you kindly for supplying this relative information to the community.

~Bruno~