Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on December 14, 2011, 06:16:23 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on December 14, 2011, 05:58:20 AM

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on December 14, 2011, 05:40:29 AM

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.

You mean "You could have at least spelled 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! Grin

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!