4 ms·

Agreed. I think it could be a great way to raise money for some kind of cause though.

mess110 9y ago
What a great idea!
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> I think it could be a great way to raise money for some kind of cause though. I'd like to see some proof that the charity-runner isn't going to abscond with the money once it was done, either due to maliciousness, or even something like getting stressed out over success (like some Kickstarters have done.) (And yeah, I know - it's not like it's a Bitcoin/blockchain only problem - but at least with "real" money, there's typically a system in place where you can at least start trying to get the money back.)
- notwhoyouthink 9y ago
  Another user suggested using Ethereum smart contracts for this. I'm not terribly familiar with Ethereum, but I wonder if the contract could be designed to automatically forward to a Charity-held wallet, or even the wallet of a reputable intermediary like Watsi.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    I'd be incredibly wary of using Ethereum contracts for this. The DAO has shown that writing software is apparently difficult.
    - splintercell 9y ago
      What do you think about Tezos Smart Contracts then?
      - pavel_lishin 9y ago
        I've done no research, I don't really know much about the whole... ledgersphere? Seems like it just puts in a mechanism for changing the protocol without forking the chain, but I'm not sure why people couldn't continue running the old protocol, effectively forking it anyway (other than a "look, we all agreed to no forks, you're explicitly a dick if you fork it, not just someone with a disagreement" angle.)
        splintercell 9y ago
        Oh well I was pointing out to the part where their whole codebase is formally prove, plus their Smart Contract language Michelson is functional and can be used very easily to be formally proven (there by leading to writing more secure smart contracts), since you're earlier concern was security.
        pavel_lishin 9y ago
        I don't see that anywhere, although I only googled very briefly. The closest I saw was this: > Updates to the protocol can be required to carry formal proofs indicating that they respect agreed core principles agreed upon by the stakeholders. Which doesn't really make sense; how do you write a formal proof that something align with someone's core principles?
  - TD-Linux 9y ago
    You can accomplish the same with the OP's Bitcoin implementation just by having the charity own all of the Bitcoin addresses used.

What a great idea!

> I think it could be a great way to raise money for some kind of cause though. I'd like to see some proof that the charity-runner isn't going to abscond with the money once it was done, either due to maliciousness, or even something like getting stressed out over success (like some Kickstarters have done.) (And yeah, I know - it's not like it's a Bitcoin/blockchain only problem - but at least with "real" money, there's typically a system in place where you can at least start trying to get the money back.)

notwhoyouthink 9y ago
Another user suggested using Ethereum smart contracts for this. I'm not terribly familiar with Ethereum, but I wonder if the contract could be designed to automatically forward to a Charity-held wallet, or even the wallet of a reputable intermediary like Watsi.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  I'd be incredibly wary of using Ethereum contracts for this. The DAO has shown that writing software is apparently difficult.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    What do you think about Tezos Smart Contracts then?
    - pavel_lishin 9y ago
      I've done no research, I don't really know much about the whole... ledgersphere? Seems like it just puts in a mechanism for changing the protocol without forking the chain, but I'm not sure why people couldn't continue running the old protocol, effectively forking it anyway (other than a "look, we all agreed to no forks, you're explicitly a dick if you fork it, not just someone with a disagreement" angle.)
      - splintercell 9y ago
        Oh well I was pointing out to the part where their whole codebase is formally prove, plus their Smart Contract language Michelson is functional and can be used very easily to be formally proven (there by leading to writing more secure smart contracts), since you're earlier concern was security.
        pavel_lishin 9y ago
        I don't see that anywhere, although I only googled very briefly. The closest I saw was this: > Updates to the protocol can be required to carry formal proofs indicating that they respect agreed core principles agreed upon by the stakeholders. Which doesn't really make sense; how do you write a formal proof that something align with someone's core principles?
- TD-Linux 9y ago
  You can accomplish the same with the OP's Bitcoin implementation just by having the charity own all of the Bitcoin addresses used.