I assumed "the project" meant that the tip goes back into a general pool still dedicated to the particular project the tip was originally designated for. Then these funds would be available for redistribution when new commits are made to the project.

I can see how "the project" could also be interpreted as tip4commit though and if that's the case, that's pretty lousy.

> I assumed "the project" meant that the tip goes back into a general pool still dedicated to the particular project the tip was originally designated for.

This interpretation is correct

If by now you don't understand that this project is a bad idea, you are going to get a reputation of being not intelligent. That's not a good reputation for a coder.

Why is it a bad idea?

Maybe people have already stated the reasons. And you (wrongly) think you have effectively refuted them. You are being, to choose a mild word, dense.

Sometimes it's best to just look at how mad you are making people, and draw your conclusions from that.

You are making something people don't want.

wohhhh, that's pretty hostile don't you think?

I've being reading through this whole debacal myself, and I haven't seen any good reasons so far.

I think tip4commit is a pretty hostile project itself. It deserves a hostile reprimand. And since the creator refuses to even opt-out (let alone opt-in) projects, I really can't feel sorry for them.

This is very similar to Readability's revenue model and you can see how that turned out. http://blog.readability.com/2012/06/announcement/

When I said "returned to the project's balance" - I meant "returned to the funded project's balance" so that other contributors to that project could receive them.

Sorry if sounds ambiguous, English is not my native language.

E. g. if you donate to reward contributors of https://tip4commit.com/github/bitcoin/bitcoin and some contributor doesn't specify bitcoin address to claim tips within 30 days then his or her tips will be returned back to bitcoin/bitcoin's balance (see this logic at https://github.com/tip4commit/tip4commit/blob/master/app/mod...)

I've been thinking of something similar.

I'd get a few different signs from random organisations like doctor's without borders, red cross and some other popular ones and then I'll setup on the town square. Big ass signs and maybe a little pamphlet with the details. I'll let everyone know what a fantastic contribution to world peace I'm doing and that I will hand over all their donations as soon as the organisation they donated to gets in touch with me.

I'll just send the organisations a mail informing them that they now have a business relationship with me that I refuse to let them opt-out of. They probably won't mind...

Stop being stupid. Clear your database and implement opt-in.

However every project's balance is stored in your coffers, correct ? And you use an exponential decay function to distribute tips (1% of the balance per commit), which means that some fraction of the donated amount will always remain in your possession, correct ? And statistically, a majority of projects will slow down or stop development altogether eventually, and in this case you will keep the bitcoins indefinitely, correct ?

Could you provide an estimate of the amount of tips actually sent to people with regards to the amount donated ? Could you also provide an estimate of how much funds are being withheld because the tips amount is below the withdrawal threshold ?

And what happens when a project's owner will never claim tips? Like if he declared he is not interested in using your site, but people will pay tips because they see the project's name?

It's been a long time since I was a law student. However, as I recall the rules of trusts in common law countries (assuming this thing is covered by those rules):

1. If you take a donation from A on behalf of B, you are now a trustee. That means you're bound by fiduciary duty, which is a very strict standard of behaviour[1].

2. If you can't find B, or if B refuses to accept the donation, you must return it to A. It cannot be repurposed for other beneficiaries.

3. If you repurpose the funds for yourself, you have breached fiduciary duty and are legally in deep, deep shit.

The exceptions are, of course, if you explicitly formed a trust with explicit terms allowing you to select other beneficiaries.

Of course, the laws vary according to jurisdiction. Trusts caselaw has evolved slightly differently in different common law countries. And legislatures are typically suspicious of trusts because they get used a lot to reduce tax burdens, so there tends to be a lot of local tinkering with the trusts laws.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

It seems to mean go back from the committer to the project that is funded, not tip4commit's coffers.

yes, that's right, thanks!

They mean the overall project the individual contributor was contributing to I believe. But, what happens if the overall project isn't participating? Does tip4commit keep it?

I also wonder if tip4commit has looked into whether there is a legal requirement for them to escheat the funds to the state to hold for the individual if the individual doesn't claim it.

I doubt it's a mistake. If you ask me, it's more likely that this is the whole goal of "the project."

> If you ask me, it's more likely that this is the whole goal of "the project."

No, it is not. We just came with this idea for rails rumble competition, it was pretty spontaneous.

Sorry if "to the project" sounds ambiguous, I meant "to the funded project" (not to tip4commit unless we are talking about tips to https://tip4commit.com/github/tip4commit/tip4commit contributors).