This time I don't have a leg to stand one. I (Bruno) take full responsibility for the inaction of Bitcoin 100, offering up no excuses.
That said, if in 30 days we (mostly I) do not obtain a charity to accept Bitcoin as a payment option as outlined by Bitcoin 100 terms, then by all means all funds currently on deposit should be returned to those who've donated.
CornedBeefHash, among others, have been more than patient in this regard.
Somebody, please quote this post for posterity. Meanwhile, I have a letter to pen, for I have a charity in mind that just might add Bitcoin as a payment option to its donation page.
Thank again, CBH, for bringing this back to the forefront.
~Bruno K~
I strongly disagree.
We now have everything set up: Webpage, publicity on bitcointalk, donators, even our first success!
Even if we don't find NGOs accepting Bitcoin donations in the speed we like to, any additional NGO found will help our cause.
So even if it takes months for each additional NGO, I say lets do it!
Noone here will be shouting if no immediate success is visible. For me, my small bitcoin pledge is a donation anyway. If, after years and years, we have no single success, we might discuss returning those single bitcoins. But now? Why introduce unneeded pressure now?
On the contrary! We now have a much better situation than when the whole Bitcoin 100 started!
When approaching NGOs, we can point to two high-level politicians accepting bitcoins for donations. The use and infrastructure around Bitcoin is stronger too!
And, as a idea I got some time ago:
How about we, you Bruno, join efforts with The Bitcoin Foundation? Writing as an official of TBF, or as being controlled/reviewed/authorized by TBF, or just as a member of TBF, will make the initial letter and Bitcoin in general look more reputable.
I know about the pro-and-cons debates about TBF. I know that the whole idea of being "authorized" by TBF is laughable. I am just thinking that Bitcoin 100 and The Bitcoin Foundation have a lot of overlap and would profit from each other. And, as I am sure, have the same goals too.
Ente
The bottomline is that I needed a well deserved kick in the ass to get Bitcoin100 back on track. CornBeefHash was just using his foot to get me to act. I penned the 30-day-this-or-else post to make sure I felt the kick strong and hard. Now it's time for me to produce.
In the last few months, I've spent way too much time chasing teenage Chinese boys, pirates, butterflies, etc., nearly to the point of getting depressed about Bitcoin's future. But now it seems the excitement is back across the board, and I'm back in the game.
I have a viable for-profit idea up my sleeve and feel it's imperative that something positive continues to emerge from Bitcoin100 so that later when said entity goes live, it doesn't come across as another-Bruno's-trying-to-do-something-but... placemat.
As far as your noble suggestion of joining forces with TBF, I have to say that at this stage it's not practical. But further down the road, as Bitcoin100 earns its salt, most definitely that option may be explored.
I am toying with the idea of somehow getting the lead developer paid via other means besides funds donated/paid to TBF. In fact, I can easily do it through the for-profit entity I have in mind. The only thing I would desire to know is what dollar amount--yearly--that would consist of, believing I can provide said funds.
Thank you kindly, Ente, for your support.
~Bruno K~
Now that's more like it!
Lets get this fckn party started! :-)
Ente