Another interesting way would be to donate to Dorian from his block. Andreas just set it up on reddit:http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_fundrais...
More than 17 BTC donated (and rising) by more than 650 transactions! https://blockchain.info/address/1Dorian4RoXcnBv9hnQ4Y2C1an6NJ4UrjX
Hello Mr. N,
I am Shannon, the Recruiter. I have a client who wishes to retain your services. This is a short term contract [<3 weeks]; all correspondence, work, and payment to be done with anonymity [of course]. The terms and currencies are flexible; you might want to consider the new gametoken all the kids are playing these days - PupCoin or DogCoin or something - they say its on a lunar trajectory.
Please contact me if you're ever available for new consulting work - or if you can refer any colleagues with similar backgrounds who may be seeking employment.
admin at bitrecruiter dot com
Such a pity Leah didn't care about your privacy
If nothing else, by process of elimination - albeit however tiny - you have enlightened us once again. I shall call this absolute minimum amount of help a Satoshi in your honor.
But really, thank you for saying something after all these years. You've changed many of our lives for the better!
With so many interested persons checking in here, I believe this would be a good time to again share Chris Cook's brief, simple and correct summation of the problem with bitcoin, from http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-with-bitc...:
"The fact is that a unit of account and a unit of currency are two different things, even though we are used to fiat currency being used as both. Bitcoin works technically as a decentralised messaging system and currency token, but since it has only subjective value it has no objective basis in the material world. It is therefore literally use-less as a unit of account by reference to which value judgements are made. The fact that fiat currencies are similarly use-less is irrelevant: I’m not defending them. To be sustainable, a currency unit must be stable, but that is the last thing Bitcoin can ever be, because it is – demonstrably – subject to the ‘madness of crowds’."
Chris has written more extensively on this and with added value elsewhere, but this cuts to the chase: *if no stability, then no good as money*, and events over the year (since this was first posted) confirm the analysis. If you disagree, that's your choice, I'm not here to argue, just to share, and I'll only add that although the scheme is no good for currency, the block chain does seem to have some useful applications.
The value of a currency is inherently subject to the madness of crowds. Value is relative, not absolute, stop thinking in 19th century economic ideas. Diamonds are not inherently more valuable than water.
No, the real problem with bitcoin is that it is not a currency, it is a system of title. If it takes an hour to truly spend something, it's useless for cash-equivalent transactions. You can mitigate that somewhat with wallet companies (call them 'banks' if you want) who trust each other's transactions, but then you just re-created a check clearinghouse.
Russ, you're not understanding the point, which regards a unit of account -- the metric that provides the stability necessary to make something useful as currency rather than "subject to the madness of the crowds". This is necessary to qualify an instrument as a global reserve currency. Moreover, the crisis today is inequitable distribution of real wealth, which is not a result of central creation of money and thus decentralizing creation won't produce equitable distribution, regardless of the speed of transactions.
Thank you for your reply.