Topic: Bitcoin 100: Developed Specifically for Non-Profits - page 35. (Read 262784 times)

Now that sounds intriguing... !

Two years ago, Rassah casually mentioned in some thread (pretty sure it was the infamous Pinkie Pie thread) owning a coffee table having a funky motif. I kinda made mention of it lightly, whereupon one or two others expanded upon it. Rassah posted (paraphrased), "What's this obsession with my coffee table?", whereupon I took the conversation to the next level and never let it go.

The art work on the table is beautiful, but not safe for work.

Hope that explains the running joke, bud.

Seriously, what is this coffee table malarkey?

For full disclosure, the only other person I'm aware of having the key is Roger Ver. It was set up at the onset (see OP of this thread) this way for the sole purpose of the proverbial hit-by-a-bus scenario. Edd or I do not have a key. I won't even know how to use one if I did. Rassah may have given another person (perhaps hubby) the key, but not for any nefarious purposes.

The funds are completely safe as they possibly can be in Rassah hands.

If Rassah were to operate an escrow service (maybe he already is), I would highly recommend using it. The dude comes across highly honest, albeit owning a funking coffee table.

Can I just claim that the funds are common, public property stored everywhere in the blockchain, and I'm just one of the people who knows how to get to them? 

I'm guessing no. It is trivially easy to set it up so that no one really owns it. I did mention I'm not the only one with the key. I'm just the one using it most.

The problem that you will run into is that you claim not to own those funds, but nobody else claims ownership of them either. The government does not like things to be unowned, so it would make sense to form some sort of organization which would lay claim to those funds (and thus they would not need to be added to your personal income for tax purposes).

You can? How? And yeah, once salaries enter the mix, governments are going to want to know how much we paid to whom, and "just look at blockchain.info" won't cut it.


I'm getting a refresher, since I'm doing accounting for the Amsterdam conference


I think transhumanism is more "Hey guys! Let's fuck with our DNA, pump ourselves full of chemicals, and stick computers in our brains, until we figure out how to live for ever!"

One issue with that: Bitcoin100 is not an American entity. I donate my time to it, and you, Bruno, and I are US citizens (dunno about edd), none of whom actually get a salary. Other people helping and volunteering are from other countries. So Bitcoin100 is really a web-based entity. One could argue that since I am running it, it is my personal thing, and I should do personal reporting of my own personal hobby project, specifically to make sure I'm not scamming with a fake "charity," but I don't claim to own Bitcoin100, am not in sole possession of the funds (others have the private key as well), and all activities are completely public, so there is nothing for me to scam or hide. This whole thing is one of those new tricky "global entity" things that many other international companies are struggling with... 

I'm sure we can readdress the 501(s)3 again at a later time if/when Bitcoin 100 grows to warrant such. Meanwhile, the funds collected and distributed through us is probably still below the radar, coupled with we have conducted ourselves in the most transparent way possible.

OTOH, we can easily take Bitcoin 100 to the next level, where we would be dealing with millions of dollars if we so desire. But, if we were to do such, it would take so much time to maintain that those in control would be expected to take a salary, albeit one much lower than what's doles out via other NPO's to their CEO/VPs/staff.

I sure the hell hope Rassah has been paying attention in his accounting/business classes.


Everything looks fine with their org., but not sure if it's considered religious based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

The IRS, my friend. I believe the Internal Revenue Service might insist bitcoins sent to us constitute "taxable income" unless we register as a 501c. I could be wrong, however. I don't have much experience in running non-profits.

As big, or small, as our supporters want us to get?


We will likely never run out of charities. There are new ones popping up all the time. We may run out of money way before then though. When bitcoin is ubiquitous, and everyone uses it anyway, then we will end.


We could set up a separate BTC account, I guess... Though I'm not sure how it would work exactly. It's not like we have revenues, and 100% of our income budget is for charities. Maybe we could post updates on things we need (like add spots and such) and have people donate to fund those specifically? Though that would require people to either donate twice, or choose between donating to our operating and our charity account. Another idea is to set up a % of future donations from a specific point to be spent on operating budget. I.e., all donations so far are charity only, and all donations starting on some day in the future will be split with 5% going to operating. We can then adjust the % as we need more or less.


How come?


Of course. BTC100 money goes into the BTC100 address, and any time I spend anything from it, the change goes right back to the BTC100 address. That way, all money is kept in one place, and all transactions are trackable from one address. If we set up an operating account, I would set it up the exact same way, with 5% (e.g.) transfers coming in from the main BTC100 address, all change on expenses going right back to the operating account, and all expenses noted in the blockchain.info address transaction list.

New charity suggestion:


Looks like part of the Transhumanism movement. Thoughts?

It may be time for a discussion about the future of Bitcoin100. How big do we want to get? What happens when we run out of charities, when every respectable organization has either accepted our BTC or said "No thanks"? Does the Bitcoin100 story end or do we start a new chapter?

I agree with Peter that the funds donated so far should be considered earmarked for charities only. Rassah, Phinnaeus and I are covering the minimal overhead expenses for Bitcoin100 out of our personal funds but if we begin accruing additional expenses it might be wise to keep everything as transparent as possible.

If we start spending other people's money on anything other than donations, it might be best to register and start acting like a "legitimate" non-profit. It might be interesting to see how bitcoins and the blockchain may be used to allow our books to remain open to review by anyone and everyone. I for one would like to make a real effort to keep funds in a closed "bitcoin only" loop.

This one's a tad trickier due to: view-source:http://byteback.org/


Hence, archive.org has no record of them, albeit they've been registered since 1997 according to Godaddy.


http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://byteback.org

http://www.linkedin.com/company/byte-back


No info here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/byteback.org

Let's see if we can get more information from their camp so that we can shine a more positive one on them.

Domain registered in 2012, and Wayback Machine for 2013 only. No 501(c)3.

Further discussion is warranted with this one, but seems to be a noble cause and probably deserving. I will go along with any decision made concerning them.

Another No-Brainer: And another YES from me.

No Brainer! YES from me.

I'll concur!

Now, I'm going to take the time to review all the suggestions submitted to Rassah.

All of these seem like great places to support. I'm down for the whole lot.

Ooh, and another one!


I'll have to wait till I get home to review all of these. Bruno, since I know you're never busy with anything  feel free to check these out and let me know what you think, too.