Topic: Bitcoin100 & archive.org - page 3. (Read 5296 times)
archive.org's "Every bit helps" is nice too. "Bitcoin donations: Every bit helps. With bitcoin you can donate amounts as small as a cent, without any middle man profiting from your gift."
As far as the slogan goes (no, it's not going anywhere, but...), I envisioned it directed at the potential charitable organizations, emphasizing that everybody who donates Bitcoin to them, they receive 100% of those funds--no transfer fees.
Exactly. "All our donation (the donations collected through us, the Bitcoin100) are belong to you (the charity who keeps 100%)".BTW, that slogan I came up with is just an idea, and no way am I trying to push that we use it, though it can be considered a talking point (do points talk?).
That can be used as a litmus test for choosing charities. If it crosses our minds to approach an organization with this slogan, it's probably not the kind of charity we are looking for.
Voted "no". They already received over 250 bitcoin. At this point 100 bitcoin is less impressive, because the 250 in a week was impressive enough as it is.
Apart from that, I think bitcoin100 is more of a "x in need" kind of charity support, although I guess we could branch out to whatever we fancy.
Apart from that, I think bitcoin100 is more of a "x in need" kind of charity support, although I guess we could branch out to whatever we fancy.
As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.
Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!
"Donation". Say it right.Edit: The other way around. Should be "All Our Donation are Belong to You!".
I'm getting tired, hence the 's' error.
As far as the slogan goes (no, it's not going anywhere, but...), I envisioned it directed at the potential charitable organizations, emphasizing that everybody who donates Bitcoin to them, they receive 100% of those funds--no transfer fees. BTW, that slogan I came up with is just an idea, and no way am I trying to push that we use it, though it can be considered a talking point (do points talk?).
I'm tired and starting to type stupid. Consider this my last post of the night, unless I post another one.
~Bruno~
As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.
Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.Reminds me of The Oatmeal's Twitter Spelling Test Quiz.
I got "Look at the temperature Gage" wrong! So I emailed them and asked why.
As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.
Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.Reminds me of The Oatmeal's Twitter Spelling Test Quiz.
As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.
Yeah, but a quick search indicates that what's out there is not quite like what I want to do. I want to format it a bit differently, and focus on the most irritating misspellings of really basic words.Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!
"Donation". Say it right.Edit: The other way around. Should be "All Our Donation are Belong to You!".
I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.
A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.
If it's any consolation, FF's spellchecker doesn't agree that "incentivize" and "counterintuitive" are words. It's wrong, of course.
As long as we're on a grammar tangent... I have for some time wanted to set up a webpage correcting some commonly misspelled words like "definitely", "lose", "its", "they're", "would have", etc. I figured I would give people the option to donate for my efforts using PayPal. But the likely donations would be small and PayPal's fixed fee would eat them all up. So I invented the concept of "randomized donations" which allows donating any given amount on average with much less transaction fees (at the cost of higher variance). But now with Bitcoin this is all moot, and I know a lot more now about setting up webpages, so I should probably go ahead with that...
Nice caught!
As far as your website idea is concerned, there are a couple like what you've described, for I've used them before.
I like the slogan!
Bitcoin100: All your Donations are Belong to You!
No, i never used it.
As seen on their FAQ page:
Quote
Do you receive 100% of donations made through JustGive?
We deduct 4.5% of donations to cover the transaction costs.
We deduct 4.5% of donations to cover the transaction costs.
I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.
A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.If it's any consolation, FF's spellchecker doesn't agree that "incentivize" and "counterintuitive" are words. It's wrong, of course.
As long as we're on a grammar tangent... I have for some time wanted to set up a webpage correcting some commonly misspelled words like "definitely", "lose", "its", "they're", "would have", etc. I figured I would give people the option to donate for my efforts using PayPal. But the likely donations would be small and PayPal's fixed fee would eat them all up. So I invented the concept of "randomized donations" which allows donating any given amount on average with much less transaction fees (at the cost of higher variance). But now with Bitcoin this is all moot, and I know a lot more now about setting up webpages, so I should probably go ahead with that...
Here's what I propose. We reach out to June over at archive.org and lay our cards on the table, so to speak. We explain our dilemma to her and, perhaps, she'll offer up a kind solution. The folks over there seem to be very straight up with what they're doing, and I'm sure they fully understand what's in play here. We can provide her the links to the relative threads here on this forum for starters, then be very upfront with her. Hold nothing back. My guess is that after a quick exchange of emails, this issue should be resolved.
Sure, sounds good.100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).
Why go half-way? "All your donation are belong to us". I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to it's guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.
I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'. Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?
Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.
Cheers,
Derek
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to it's guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.
I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'. Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?
Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.
Cheers,
Derek
Possibly seen on a future charitable organization's donation page:
By choosing Bitcoin as a donation option, we incur no transfer fees, therefore 100% of your donation are belong to us (or something like that).
No, i never used it.
I voted no
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to its guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.
I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'. Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?
Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.
Cheers,
Derek
because the Archive is an excellent campaign but it is not the bitcoin100 ;p I just think the bitcoin100 should stick to its guns on promoting to as many 'charaties' as possible.
I did notice that Archive.org added the donate to bitcoin link to their donate page now. That is awesome. But it is just a fine start. I think the Archive campaign should suggest they further simplify it for their donators by making it a 'button'. Bit-pay or similar have buttons for donating now right?
Edit; Justgive charges them 4.5% from each donation. shame shame.
Cheers,
Derek
I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.
A very well written post! I've read it three times, and still unable to improve upon it. You could have at least spell ONE word incorrectly.
Here's what I propose. We reach out to June over at archive.org and lay our cards on the table, so to speak. We explain our dilemma to her and, perhaps, she'll offer up a kind solution. The folks over there seem to be very straight up with what they're doing, and I'm sure they fully understand what's in play here. We can provide her the links to the relative threads here on this forum for starters, then be very upfront with her. Hold nothing back. My guess is that after a quick exchange of emails, this issue should be resolved.
Thoughts?
~Bruno~
I voted no. I mean, archive.org is great and all, I won't start a riot if it's chosen, but I don't think this is what I signed up for. The goal (I think?) was to improve Bitcoin's perception by having mainstream charities accept it, and to that end incentivize charities for whom it would be otherwise counterintuitive to accept bitcoins. A geeky project like archive.org doesn't much further that goal. And, while it doesn't feel right to punish them for accepting Bitcoin on their own, the fact is that they don't need the extra incentive, and they're doing fine raising bitcoin funds by people who want to donate specifically to them.
I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. This is true for down the road, also, regarding the future releasing of funded wallets. I will only become voicetress if I discover something nefarious pertaining to any charitable organization that supporters of Bitcoin100 are about to fund.
I pretty much agree with Technomage and BWagner.
I'm not ok with such a small and obscure link at the very bottom of the page, not by a long shot.
EDIT/CLARIFICATION: I voted Yes - I have no doubt that archive.org deserves our support, we just need to make sure a minor webpage update is bundled in with the donation ^^
I'm not ok with such a small and obscure link at the very bottom of the page, not by a long shot.
EDIT/CLARIFICATION: I voted Yes - I have no doubt that archive.org deserves our support, we just need to make sure a minor webpage update is bundled in with the donation ^^
I agree 100% with bwagner. I'm very much against donating the wallet at this time, but if they change the location of the donation link, I would be okay with this. I also have a separate pledge for the archive which I'm currently holding but will honor if they change the link location, and my donation amount will also be bigger. That would be a sign that they really care about Bitcoin so I'm happy to reward for that.
If they will move the Bitcoin donation choice right up there next to above PayPal and make it a button just like the stupid PayPal button I will personally donate 10 more BTC directly to them and I would vote that we dontate the full 100 BTC to them once this is done.
Sounds fair.
Further discussion, please.
If they will move the Bitcoin donation choice right up there next to above PayPal and make it a button just like the stupid PayPal button I will personally donate 10 more BTC directly to them and I would vote that we dontate the full 100 BTC to them once this is done.
Jump to: