Nim receives $100k in Bitcoin donations

https://nim-lang.org/blog/2021/10/25/nim-receives-100k-usd-bitcoin.html

by pietroppeter • 5 years ago

137 113 5 years ago

Nice, we’ve got $100k! I wonder what we’re going to spend our $88k on? Maybe we should use our $112k to hire somebody to work on the compiler full time? Would $85k be enough for them?

ptudan• 5 years ago

Equally glib: In 2025, damn, with inflation devs are costing 500k or 2 btc these days!

warkdarrior• 5 years ago

2021: One dev are about 5 BTC now (including benefits), so it's nice to see costs will come down in the future.

arcticbull18• 5 years ago

What's your rationale to suggest that inflation will double the price of everything in the next 4 years?

WesolyKubeczek3• 5 years ago

Boy, looks like votes on my comment are just as volatile.

dmitriid• 5 years ago

HackernewsCommentCoin?

judofyr• 5 years ago

Historically there’s been a mentality on HN to avoid these repetitive shallow jokes (sorry, but it’s true) since they don’t lead to much interesting discussions, but maybe times are changing.

capableweb2• 5 years ago

If I were a developer receiving cryptocurrency donations I'd be much happier to receive > $0 than $0 which would probably be the alternative if I didn't have a address people could send to.

oleganza• 5 years ago

People who choose to attempt to understand bitcoin are either loud zealots, or stay quiet because why would they expose themselves? So the superficial criticism of volatility or "how do I reverse a fraudulent payment" is left to those who don't even bother to explore the subject.

boublepop• 5 years ago

It’s a joke about the volatility of Bitcoin, not a dismissal of donations.

I know Bitcoin proponents can be quite dismissive of anything that could potentially sound negative towards crypto, but I feel like we should not be having a discourse on HN where a joke like this has to be explained or which has people downvoting OP for making it. No matter your stance on Bitcoin it’s volatility is a matter of established fact, and it’s a fun joke, how the hell did humor die in the crowd of wallstreet bets HODL’rs screening yolo while betting their house on a stick because the ticket has high meme-value?

bpodgursky• 5 years ago

"Crypto is a pointless scam, let's complain about asset prices"

-- people who have donated $0 to Nim

gameswithgo• 5 years ago

I've contributed to Nim's development and I say that.

jarcane2• 5 years ago

Technically, this includes the people who gave them the Bitcoin.

Bitcoin != USD.

In fact I seem to recall being told that was rather the point.

wyldfire7• 5 years ago

We’ve received some small donations here and there, in hindsight we should have secured these funds much earlier[1], but the relatively large recent donation has spurred us into action. Essentially what we did was move the funds to hardware wallets owned by the core development team. This way we have significantly reduced the risk of the funds being stolen.

Bitcoin's coolest feature is perhaps it's biggest weakness. I think virtually all of the people to whom Bitcoin is appealing have had access to a banking system which means we have never had to think about securing our wealth. IMO being able to safely secure the secret that would unlock a wallet from both destruction and theft is not easy. You can avoid the risk of destruction by redundantly storing the secret. Hardware wallets are a great option, probably the best one. Let's hope it's enough.

BTW: I did a mini-matching fundraising for a couple of days for Zig, based on some cryptocoins I had that were gathering dust. Conveniently enough there's a broker out there that was able to receive the cryptocurrency, exchange it and forward it to the Zig Foundation. This relieved the Zig team from the hassle of securing or exchanging the funds. See the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28790988 -- I was able to donate my cryptocurrency to match funds donated using conventional means.

jarcane2• 5 years ago

Yes, physical storage is so much more secure.

That's why I bury all my gold in the backyard.

arcticbull18• 5 years ago

I'd recommend keeping it at the COMEX gold warehouse.

cinntaile• 5 years ago

Using a hardware wallet doesn't mean you're physically storing it. It's just a user interface to make storing it a little easier and a little more secure than having it as a file on your computer or on a piece of paper.

TacticalCoder2• 5 years ago

You can avoid the risk of destruction by redundantly storing the secret.

Not disagreeing with you but then there are two places (or more) where the secret can be found and your funds stolen. As to having, in addition to that, a hardware wallet makes for yet another potential attack vector: is the hardware wallet unlocked by your fingerprint? Is the fingerprint reader secure? Is it protected by a PIN? How safe is your PIN? Is the HSM in the hardware wallet really unbreakable and really erasing everything after three tries and no attacker can bypass that?

gh55• 5 years ago

You're quite right, there are risks with everything in life. I believe a hardware wallet to be far more secure than online banking. I think you'll find this interesting: https://trezor.io/shamir/

wyldfire7• 5 years ago

hijacking my top comment to mention that I'm matching donations from HNers to Nim for the next 48 hours, up to $500.

https://twitter.com/nim_lang/status/1452773004417585154?s=20

pkulak3• 5 years ago

I wish that when people put up crypto donation addresses, they at least included _one_ from a coin that doesn't have astronomical transaction fees. I like donating a couple bucks here and there to cool projects, but that will cost me three dollars if I use Bitcoin.

asasidh• 5 years ago

checkout lightning tips on twitter

wyldfire7• 5 years ago

Agreed: I would donate 500 USD worth of <a specific fee free coin> to this project if an address were allocated.

EDIT: censored to not look like I'm shilling/pumping.

doomroot5• 5 years ago

No you wouldn’t. Your clearly just want to pump your bags.

flotzam• 5 years ago

Agreed, but for a donation why not just go ahead and use super low fees anyway. The recipient can wait a few days for the transaction to confirm, or speed it up with Child Pays For Parent.

solotronics• 5 years ago

The fees are $0.36 right now for next block confirmation. If you can wait a few blocks it's $0.09

pkulak3• 5 years ago

Where are you getting that from? I see $2.58 right now.

wyager• 5 years ago

Presumably people will gradually increase acceptance of lightning payments over the next few years. The downside it it requires a server somewhere to be online to accept donations, whereas just slapping up a Bitcoin address requires no infrastructure.

iskander• 5 years ago

Most crypto chains suck for small-to-medium payments. The fees on some layer 2 solutions for Ethereum look promisingly low (between $0.06 and $0.30 depending on the specific L2), but these are just starting to get adopted and integrated into existing tools. Hopefully the tangle of ponzis will eventually emit a usable payment solution.

rileyphone• 5 years ago

Sci-hub has a Nano address set up, but then the issue is they still need to redeem them into a more usable currency at some point and the work to do that is barely worth the bit that they have received. This is the one area that I am still holding out hope for crypto to improve, but the vision is lacking.

tata714• 5 years ago

The vision isn't lacking, it's currently busy taking profits from retail and institutional investors with one hand tied behind the back.

daedalus_f• 5 years ago

I’m an amateur programmer and Nim was the first compiled language I properly tried after first learning to program with R and python. Love the language and found Manning’s Nim in Action a great starting point. Happy this popped up on HN as it spurred me to send a small donation.

pietroppeter2• 5 years ago

so glad I posted it, then :) I completely agree that Nim is a great first compiled language coming from those coming from R and Python!

ur-whale3• 5 years ago

Worth pointing out: notwithstanding the many and recurring howls of "Bitcoin is useless", "Show me an actual use case" often heard on HN, here is an actual example of a straight donor-to-receiver transaction where someone contributed to something he really likes and wants to support, and no third party being able to prevent it from happening or skim any of it.

If only for this specific use case (e.g. donate to wikileaks), there is actual intrinsic (and social) value in Bitcoin

_dain_• 5 years ago

Point taken, although there definitely are third parties who skim off the top (transaction fees).

doomroot5• 5 years ago

10 cents?

martin_a• 5 years ago

You know, you can always do a bank transfer. I don't think anybody would stop you from donating to some FOSS project and it's free to do that.

But yeah, if you want to donate to $shadyorg, somebody might stop you or come after you.

Don't see how Bitcoin is better in this regard.

ur-whale3• 5 years ago

But yeah, if you want to donate to $shadyorg

Because there's obviously a clear and universal agreement on what falls in the $shadyorg bucket.

Like when Visa and their cronies decide to cut off donation to an org they don't like just because.

Must be nice where you live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASzFs4_4kvk

3r8Oltr0ziouVDM2• 5 years ago

You know, you can always do a bank transfer.

Lol. In my country there is no easy way to do an international bank transfer. Crypto is literally the only solution I can imagine if I want to donate a few bucks to a FOSS project, all other options would be too much effort and too expensive.

arcticbull18• 5 years ago

That isn't really a use case in this particular instance not better served by a free ACH transfer.

It's also super disingenuous to suggest that the Bitcoin network isn't collecting its take. Miners are collecting block reward in the amount of 0.004BTC per transaction, roughly $250. This is a direct reduction in net welfare of the system. That's on top of the transaction fees of roughly $3-5.

So yeah, Bitcoin costs $255 to transact, vs a free ACH.

This is also not intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the calculated value of Bitcoin which remains $0. All value ascribed to Bitcoin is extrinsic, and this transaction extracted non-trivial value.

cle2• 5 years ago

That isn't really a use case in this particular instance not better served by a free ACH transfer.

I don't think you can make that determination unless you know why the sender chose to use Bitcoin.

doomroot5• 5 years ago

Have you tried sending money to Rwanda? There are obvious benefits to an open money api.

ur-whale3• 5 years ago

This is also not intrinsic value.

There is strictly no such thing as intrinsic value. There is only supply and demand. We've talked about this before, but I guess there's no convincing you.

oofabz• 5 years ago

There is, in fact, a good reason for a donor to use Bitcoin over ACH. If the donor obtained his Bitcoin through shady means, or does not want to pay taxes on it, spending the Bitcoin directly can allow the donor to avoid disclosing his identity. Converting to dollars and using an ACH transfer requires associating the money with his real name and identity.

howdydoo• 5 years ago

This is a direct reduction in net welfare of the system

Mining rewards are incentive to secure the network. Security increases the net welfare of the system.

Let's compare apples to apples. If you're including mining rewards in the cost for a bitcoin transaction, you should also includes Wells Fargo's payroll in the costs for a "free" ACH

vmception2• 5 years ago

In-kind transactions are never compared to fiat except when bitcoin is involved, that’s weird and only serves to show a limitation of exposure.

Non profits have always been able to take whatever assets that can be valued.

purple_ferret• 5 years ago

Sure but this is a double edged sword:

Essentially what we did was move the funds to hardware wallets owned by the core development team.

How often is it that an org makes their team personally and physically hold funds? Seems like a liability

yeetaccount• 5 years ago

I once donated a few Bitcoin to a free software project. At the time 1BTC cost about one tank of gas. I sold the remainder when I doubled my investment and thought I walked away lucky. Now 1BTC costs more than the car I’m putting the gas in. Oh well.

steve_adams_862• 5 years ago

Well, it required people like you actually using it to have any value in the start didn’t it? There had to be “losers” for there to ever be winners. But you’re not a loser because you still came out ahead.

I’m not an economist or even an intelligent person, so this could be a terrible assessment of the situation.

arcticbull18• 5 years ago

It accrues value specifically because people don't use it.

Currencies don't skyrocket in value because it cripples the economy if that happens. In currency terms, it would yield a deflationary spiral. What happens is people save their currency instead of spending it, which causes retailers to lower the prices to incentivize spending. This in turn means they have less money to pay their workers, and they have to cut their pay and lay them off. This means the workers have less money to spend and the cycle continues.

Even without a deflationary spiral, there's something called the paradox of thrift. [1]

Something like 80% of Bitcoin hasn't moved in the last year.

If we set aside the influence of USDT, the narrative you're pointing to would be that people are valuing Bitcoin more highly because of its utility as some form of currency - maybe, one day. In reality, due to its fundamental limitations and incentive structures (2-3 tx/sec), it cannot be a currency. It will always be the currency of the future, forever.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paradox-of-thrift.asp

SavantIdiot2• 5 years ago

Finally! Now there's a real example crypto enthusiasts can point to of BTC usage that isn't black market or laundering.

3r8Oltr0ziouVDM2• 5 years ago

What do you mean by "finally"? It always was one the main use cases, doing p2p value transactions.

johnisgood• 5 years ago

Yep, you could even buy groceries with BTC, but the haters seem to overlook some things. I actually bought coffee with it before, and yeah, it is legal.

TacticalCoder2• 5 years ago

The first BTC usage I remember (before hearing that it was also used to buy drugs) being talked about was poker players using it to do "person to person" transfer between poker sites. Someone had money on PokerStars and you didn't but wanted some immediately. That person would send you $100 on PokerStars (using a "player to player" transfer) and you'd sent that person 200 BTC (back when BTC was at 50 cents). This was kinda common on poker forums between regulars (sadly I was too dumb to realize the value back then).

Sure it was gambling but it was neither black market nor money laundering.

P.S: an estimated 3% to 5% of the world's GDP is linked to criminal activities. There are hundreds of politicians in the Pandora papers. Money laundering predates cryptocurrencies by a very long time and it's a problem on a whole different scale.

drdrey• 5 years ago

Or maybe you just haven’t been paying attention? What about the Pineapple fund, The Giving Block and Gitcoin grants just to name few?

dom967• 5 years ago

This has just dropped from #2 to being off the front page, why?

pietroppeter2• 5 years ago

Uff, happened again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27614742

tata714• 5 years ago

Cryptocurrency is a divisive topic on HN. For better, for worse, pro or con.

RattleyCooper• 5 years ago

Nim is my all time favorite language. The devs deserve this and more.

vmception2• 5 years ago

Don't reuse addresses not even for the sake of donation transparency (no other kind of donation would get this level of transparency, it is easy to re-raise crypto to those standards and also exceed it)

The master public key will let you cycle to an infinite number of new and unique addresses to send funds to.

But purely client side merchant solutions for bitcoin (and other crypto assets) are sorely lacking!

BitcoinPayServer pretty much sucks.

Nim receives $100k in Bitcoin donations

Related Stories