41–50 of 59 posts
> OpenMRS said Pine had contributed software patches to the effort previously. Philanthropy.com did this person a grave disservice. This drastically narrows the donor pool and is quite in violation of their earlier statement: > Pine agreed to a phone interview with the Chronicle on the condition that the article include no identifying information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone tells you that they personally dug up some gold in a mountain in Colorado, how exactly would you go about verifying their claim?
Mining rights, proper registration and certification of the gold nugget, etc., etc. It’s fairly common in the financial industry to check where funds come from (“know your customer”). It’s done to prevent money laundering and make illicit activity harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: why should they care?
Ethics: if the money comes from theft, child pornography or selling crack cocaine (extreme examples, not saying this is the case here), you can hardly say you are making the world a better place.
Noob question here: You receive $1mil in bitcoin as someone who knows nothing about bitcoin...then what? Do you sell it? Do you need to go find someone to sell it to? I'd imagine you can't just go to an exchange and unload $1mil in bitcoin as most exchanges have limits on how much you can trade at once without more advanced accounts?
"...bitcoin deposits were usually handled by outside agencies, such as BitPay, which then transferred cash to the charity’s bank account."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hosted by Github pages which only needs an email address and is free so no billing info. Domain requires payment and stuff but you can easily use whois privacy protection. Looks like they use "Whois Guard Protection". In the end they are relying on both whois guard and the domain registrar to keep their anonymity.
Oh thanks! So it means it's not completely anonymous, someone at the registrar can lookup the info if I got this rigth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh thanks! So it means it's not completely anonymous, someone at the registrar can lookup the info if I got this rigth?
They could have registered the domain in the name of a legal entity registered in a state like Wyoming where company directors can remain anon. Basically shielded behind lawyers and shell corporations.
I wonder if this is somebody really being philanthropic, or if they just control a ton of bitcoin that they can't access (for fear of taxation / Questions Being Asked), so they drop it on charities they're sympathetic to...
Isn't it philanthropy regardless? If Pine benefits, it's only because society benefits.
I wonder if this is somebody really being philanthropic, or if they just control a ton of bitcoin that they can't access (for fear of taxation / Questions Being Asked), so they drop it on charities they're sympathetic to...
The donor has said/intimated they they have enough money from bitcoin that they own that they really dont need the rest and so it may as well go to good causes. He/She/They can probably expect something of a tax write-off but I imagine that taxes arent really a problem for them either. If you are happy to give away ~$80m then paying ~$10-20m in taxes is not going to phase you.
For people who skip the article and go straight to the comments. This is indeed about the Pineapple fund [0]. [0] https://pineapplefund.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still obscure its source and exchange it for cash.
Obscuring the source won't help if the IRS knows "John Doe at least once controlled the Bitcoins at address foo". At that point, they'll assume you still control them unless you can prove otherwise.