Topic: Bitcoin100 & archive.org (Read 5345 times)

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.


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~

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~

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

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

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.

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).

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~

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~

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.

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.

WOW! Effin' tight!


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? 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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~

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'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)

After some consideration, I think I would change my vote to a yes as well. How about we just let those who pledged/donated say if they want their portion to go? We don't have to donate an even 100 amount, this time, do we? I am also a tad concerned that some of the people who donated 10BTC may have wanted this to go to an actual charity. Honestly I have never even heard of Archive.org until yesterday. But they have voluntarily jumped through lots of hoops to do what they did.

Bruno, you have a point. We don't really need another poll to solve this, I think we can make the decision based on what we have. The poll already has more yes votes and at least my vote would change from no to yes if we did it again. And the whole community, not only Bitcoin100, seems to be really impressed with what the Internet Archive did. I don't think anybody will be pissed if the first wallet is allocated to them. Not only are they interested in Bitcoin, the service they provide is a good cause.

But I think that after this we should really start focusing on contacting organizations. I know we don't even have full 100 members yet, but we are close, and the amount of BTC in total is already over 100 I think. Doesn't mean we should quit recruiting more members to this effort, but we should go forward with our plans to contact charities.

Before I offer up my opinions on posts in this topic, I want to let you folks know that I've registered a new user name on this forum to solely use, more or less, for all things considered Bitcoin100. The user name is Bitcoin 100 (the space, irrelevant), of which I've formally requested to be whitelisted. https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoin-100-47977


Bitcoin100 will most definitely fork off into different paths, but that's further down the road. Currently, a strong foundation is being laid, enabling us to travel on a smooth surface, thereby easily incorporating adjunct ventures if warranted.


My slogan idea was just a brainfart at the time. Again, I was tired when I thought up the idea. It was something I was thinking of reading on some charitable organizations website, not the official Bitcoin100 website which, by the way, is in the works. More on this later. Any slogan, motto, etc., used in conjunction with Bitcoin100 will have as much strength as possible that can be mustered up, like the next quoted post points out.


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


As seen here http://www.archive.org/donate/index.php the best we should hope for is having a Bitcoin button with the same relative size, color, and font. But, on the left side of this page http://www.archive.org/web/web.php (scroll down a tad), you'll see their list of contributors. Bitcoin can easily be placed on this list depending on the criteria for them doing such.


@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.


Regardless on what the final vote is this poll, it'll should only be used a bellwether in our determination, now that the situation has changed somewhat. We can easily use the poll results, coupled with the sentiment expressed here and the other thread, to resolve this issue.


Another great post!


What do you think about my bellwether idea, Technomage & BP?


I started the poll to help give us a direction in regard to the issue at hand. The idea in my mind, at the time, was leaning towards having the result determine our direction, but that my now prove futile since things have changed. My only regret upon reflecting back is that I didn't click the option of having one change there vote after they have voted. I tried my best to cover as many bases as possible with this approached, but see now that I've fouled.


Thank you, BP.

I am on record, over on the Bitcoin100 thread, for stating that if there is ever a misunderstanding, I would refund Bitcoin from my personal wallet, so that no funds are even removed from the donation wallet with the exception of it being transferred to a charitable organization.

Please forgive, Goat, for the misunderstanding, for I'm mostly to blame for this mix-up. Reason I take the blame is that I don't have a central location (the main thread's no longer cutting it) in place, as of yet, where one can easily go to and see exactly what is currently transpiring.


But if I would have had a central location for one to go to, there would have been less confusion, to date.


The original idea consist of no less than 100 charitable organizations. I truly envision this project, in its current state, taking flight and soaring until it's no longer needed, whereupon afterwards Bitcoin100 will concentrate on other charitable fronts. But that's further down the road, as I've previously stated.

I like your tweet idea, for tweets like that will surely written. https://twitter.com/#!/Bitcoin100


Earlier in this post, I mention creating a button that looks like the PayPal on archive.org's donation page. I believe we don't have to do that because that part of their CMS makeup. All they have to do is create the button with CSS and word it with Bitcoin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~~~

This conclude the addressing of posts sharing my opinions, here. Now I'm off to the other thread to see what awaits me there. Also, hopefully, the user name Bitcoin 100 has been whitelisted. But first, a fresh cup of coffee.

~Bruno~