|
beetcoin
|
 |
August 11, 2014, 01:41:00 AM |
|
^ wikileaks went on to accept bitcoin.. and bitcoin is still obviously going strong. so i'd say that despite his genius, satoshi was wrong in this instance. i think he was right to disappear though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skoupi
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Skoupi the Great
|
|
August 11, 2014, 01:55:55 AM |
|
And they still have the bitcoin donation option burried somewhere in their site...
That doesn't matter much. So are all the other "alternative" options. How much money did wikipedia make last week? From all the other alternative methods together  |
|
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
August 11, 2014, 02:00:14 AM |
|
And they still have the bitcoin donation option burried somewhere in their site...
That doesn't matter much. So are all the other "alternative" options. How much money did wikipedia make last week? From all the other alternative methods together 140000*5/4 because the news sites reported about 18% of all donations were BTC in that week. |
|
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
August 11, 2014, 02:00:42 AM |
|
^ wikileaks went on to accept bitcoin.. and bitcoin is still obviously going strong. so i'd say that despite his genius, satoshi was wrong in this instance. i think he was right to disappear though.
But I thought they didn't accept bitcoin until way later? |
|
|
|
|
Skoupi
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Skoupi the Great
|
|
August 11, 2014, 02:08:13 AM |
|
And they still have the bitcoin donation option burried somewhere in their site...
That doesn't matter much. So are all the other "alternative" options. How much money did wikipedia make last week? From all the other alternative methods together 140000*5/4 because the news sites reported about 18% of all donations were BTC in that week. I meant methods besides paypal/credit card. |
|
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
August 11, 2014, 02:09:14 AM |
|
And they still have the bitcoin donation option burried somewhere in their site...
That doesn't matter much. So are all the other "alternative" options. How much money did wikipedia make last week? From all the other alternative methods together 140000*5/4 because the news sites reported about 18% of all donations were BTC in that week. I meant methods besides paypal/credit card. Oh, no clue. But I read somewhere a while back, that they only do about 5 million USD per year in stock donations, if its any help for you  |
|
|
|
|
|
beetcoin
|
|
August 11, 2014, 02:53:27 AM |
|
^ wikileaks went on to accept bitcoin.. and bitcoin is still obviously going strong. so i'd say that despite his genius, satoshi was wrong in this instance. i think he was right to disappear though.
But I thought they didn't accept bitcoin until way later? wikileaks is not the same as wikimedia/wikipedia though. julian assange is associated with wikileaks. satoshi was against wikileaks accepting btc because it is an organization that functions to expose government secrecy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mobius
|
|
August 11, 2014, 04:21:10 AM |
|
^ wikileaks went on to accept bitcoin.. and bitcoin is still obviously going strong. so i'd say that despite his genius, satoshi was wrong in this instance. i think he was right to disappear though.
But I thought they didn't accept bitcoin until way later? wikileaks is not the same as wikimedia/wikipedia though. julian assange is associated with wikileaks. satoshi was against wikileaks accepting btc because it is an organization that functions to expose government secrecy. That was not why satoshi was against wikileaks. He was against wikileaks accepting BTC donations because them doing so would attract a lot of attention to Bitcoin when the bugs were still being worked out. That level of attention would likely result multiple attacks on the network and exploits to be found and exploited and bitcoin to fail. |
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
|
August 11, 2014, 05:05:43 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
beetcoin
|
|
August 11, 2014, 05:30:16 AM |
|
^ wikileaks went on to accept bitcoin.. and bitcoin is still obviously going strong. so i'd say that despite his genius, satoshi was wrong in this instance. i think he was right to disappear though.
But I thought they didn't accept bitcoin until way later? wikileaks is not the same as wikimedia/wikipedia though. julian assange is associated with wikileaks. satoshi was against wikileaks accepting btc because it is an organization that functions to expose government secrecy. That was not why satoshi was against wikileaks. He was against wikileaks accepting BTC donations because them doing so would attract a lot of attention to Bitcoin when the bugs were still being worked out. That level of attention would likely result multiple attacks on the network and exploits to be found and exploited and bitcoin to fail. maybe i could have done a better job explaining. wikileaks exposes government secrets, which is consider a danger to the state. associating bitcoin with them, as satoshi thought, was bad news. i'm a little bit confused here.. wikimedia/wikipedia is not the same as wikileaks. |
|
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4298
Merit: 3208
|
|
August 11, 2014, 06:54:40 AM |
|
The WikkiLeaks founder had said in a news interview a few months ago that if it was not for their investment in BTC several years ago they would likely have not been able to survive. They had purchased several thousand BTC for pennies and sold it near it's highs. The moral of the story is that dollars are not the only thing that can support a foundation.
Small correction. Wikileaks didn't purchase the bitcoins. They published a donation address and the bitcoins were donated. I donated a bunch way back. |
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
movelikejagger
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
August 11, 2014, 10:53:05 AM |
|
That is really great. Good adv for bitcoin. Hope to see such thing on other different resources
|
|
|
|
|
2double0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1105
|
|
August 11, 2014, 11:52:47 AM |
|
I'm not going to donate, but it's a good thing that they've started accepting them. I hope more charaties or projects like this get on board. It's free money at the end of the day.
And easy. Free and easy donation coming from a massive community with great potential to help any corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
Mobius
|
|
August 12, 2014, 04:39:43 AM |
|
The WikkiLeaks founder had said in a news interview a few months ago that if it was not for their investment in BTC several years ago they would likely have not been able to survive. They had purchased several thousand BTC for pennies and sold it near it's highs. The moral of the story is that dollars are not the only thing that can support a foundation.
Small correction. Wikileaks didn't purchase the bitcoins. They published a donation address and the bitcoins were donated. I donated a bunch way back. I thought for sure that the article said they purchased them for pennies each but it could have been that was the value that they had when they were donated. I am also certain that they did not accept BTC early on, but it is possible they started some time after it was initially suggested. |
|
|
|
|
heybigboy1
Member
Offline
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
|
|
August 12, 2014, 04:42:39 AM |
|
This is truly amazing, I'm stunned at what all of us can do together. |
|
|
|
|
|
darkphantom934
|
|
August 12, 2014, 07:32:19 AM |
|
Last year, I had my wallet ready to donate, but nooo.... they wouldn't accept it.  |
|
|
|
|
sgk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1002
!! HODL !!
|
|
August 12, 2014, 08:08:15 AM |
|
Late; but better late than never.
They could have raised a lot more if they had started accepting it earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
oceans
|
|
August 12, 2014, 12:28:03 PM |
|
Just goes to show how many people are willing to use bitcoins to make donations and even payments on these kind of sites. It's a shame that wikipedia did not allow donations via bitcoin a while ago as it could have really been beneficial to them accepting a lot sooner. Still it's great to see them accepting now and see that it's working for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fran2k
|
|
August 12, 2014, 03:16:25 PM |
|
If just they started accepting bitcoin donations as the community repeatedly asked a few years ago ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Painful Truth
|
|
August 12, 2014, 03:20:08 PM |
|
If just they started accepting bitcoin donations as the community repeatedly asked a few years ago ...
They'd be sitting on bitcoins worth millions of dollars by now.  |
|
|
|
|
|
