Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > I consider Bitcoin to still be far less repulsive than both the > mainstream banking system and para-banks like Paypal.
Likewise, I think Bitcoin is – while not perfect by any stretch – at least as worthwhile as PayPal for donations to a worldwide community organisation. Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> writes: > The link [to a 2014 Mozilla weblog article] does not support the claim > that [Mozilla accepting Bitcoin donation] was a net negative. The link > you site claims that sticking bitcoin donations *on the main donation > form* was a net negative. That was a little surprising. My best explanation today is that 2014 saw a lot of critical scrutiny (well deserved, in many cases) of some organisations that used Bitcoin; that may have tarred a donation form merely by association with the name. That has, AFAICT, changed dramatically in 2017: Bitcoin is known to be associated with some crime, but is also known now to be used for a great many legitimate uses. That was not something I think the general public would believe in 2014, which might explain some of the effect observed then. The Mozilla donation page shows (for me? am I part of an A/B test now?) a link to <URL:https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/give-bitcoin/> the option to donate with Bitcoin. I wonder what the data shows today for their donations. > At least from the discussion on that post it sounds like accepting > bitcoin donations was a net positive provided that they were isolated > from other donations. What resources do we have availabe that would allow a similar A/B testing experiment on showing “Other ways to donate: Bitcoin” on our donation landing page? -- \ “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear — not absence | `\ of fear.” —Mark Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ | _o__) | Ben Finney