Hey /g/, so I was wanting to bounce this idea off of you: anonymous

>>57460360
It sounds pointless, because if a bitcoin donor has that power, then it means he has to register with the site somehow (and bitcoin users prefer staying anonymous). If the registration process is easy (doesn't require irl info) then a person can just create a bot to mass create accounts and donate a lot of cash to the pot. He'll have total control over when to release it, but he never will; he'll just wait until the person completes whatever thing they were supposed to do, then the donor will take back the money.

Tl;dr it wouldn't werk.

If you're trying to create assassination website, you don't need to invent the bicycle, just look.

>>57460447
Well you'd obviously set it up kind of like an escrow for gambling. Where the money is kind of waiting in limbo with both parties unable to access it until the promise is kept.

fwiw I have seen real life investment contracts include clauses to the effect of, that its a royalty/part ownership of the business unless the business fails, then its a loan. Id be much more down with crowdfunding if you actually were able to own a part of the company. What the fuck is the point of donating blind if all you get is the product in return, so unbelievable stupid.

>>57460502
What you're talking about already exists in the real world. But setting up a system like that online would take way too many legal nuances to make it work, it's just not worth it. It's easiest to just accept donations.

>>57460550
I know it does, I'm not OP. But I think it would be easy enough to set up online, its just it becomes so easy to rip people off. But sites that act as middle men between customers and manufacturers (alibaba for instance) already do this to a certain extent, the money is held in a third party account until the customer receives the product. Im almost 100% certain its not the law that is the reason people dont do this.

What OP is forgetting is that quite often these company's require the donations in order to actually keep doing stuff. Get a product to assembly/production is not cheap, especially on a decently mass scale. Or, saying "I have a $1000000 raised through crowdfunding" means a lot less to an investor when you only have access to that money when you have a finished product, it doesnt hold as much weight as a pre-order.

>>57460585
Not only that, but OP also said that the donor is responsible for releasing the money; not the middle man. So OPs idea would never work even if the points you mentioned didn't matter (which they do).

>>57460657
oh, ya thats retarded. The one responsible for releasing the money has to be as neutral as possible

They need the money to be able to do whatever they want to do in the first place, this idea already sounds stupid. There are other issues with it as well.

Wasn't Ethereum's DAO shit basically that?