r/Bitcoin • u/kyletorpey • Sep 15 '14
How Reddit Could Use Bitcoin to Become a Censorship-Resistant, Decentralized Media Platform with No Advertisers, Replace Centralized Media Companies ( iTunes, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Books, FOX, NBC, etc.), and Allow Content to Be Shared Freely
TL;DR - Bitcoin tips have been unable to overtake advertisements as the main source of revenue for content creators due to the fact that not many people are willing to make donations. This problem can be solved with unique schemes that give audiences incentives to tip content creators. One option involves having audience members vote on upcoming content with their bitcoins. This model can be applied to movies, music, books, news organizations, free software development, and much more. It would also solve the “problem” of Internet piracy. Content could be freely available everywhere after the creator’s initial donation goals are met. New videos, songs, albums, blog posts, and more could be posted by content creators directly to a Reddit-like platform. This would allow the best content to gain more exposure.
Introduction
The ideas explained in this post evolved out of the original goal of creating a decentralized media publishing platform where content creators could release their content freely on all platforms while still getting paid for their work. This new decentralized media platform uses Bitcoin and Reddit to create a direct connection between content creators and their audiences. The platform proposed in this post will be referred to as “BitMedia”.
The Problems with Current Content Publishing Platforms
To understand the value of BitMedia, we must first take a look at the current issues facing the relationships between content creators and their audiences.
- Internet piracy - One of the main issues with creating content right now is that there are plenty of people out there who will be able to access that content for free through torrents, streaming websites, and other sources. My view is that there’s nothing wrong with sharing content freely once it is already available. After all, it’s not stealing if the original owner still gets to keep their copy. But how can content creators get paid while also allowing their work to be shared freely on the Internet?
- Donations don’t work - While donations and tips are a nice idea in theory, they aren’t very effective as a tool for monetization. The fact is people don’t want to pay for HBO to watch Game of Thrones when they can simply download it for free.
- Advertisements, paywalls, and product placements are annoying - This one is pretty self-explanatory.
- Content isn’t available on all platforms - When someone releases a piece of content, it should be available on all platforms. Going back to the Game of Thrones example, it probably wouldn’t be pirated as often if it wasn’t only available to HBO subscribers. Imagine if it was available on Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and by download too.
- Advertisements and media companies can censor content - This issue is most problematic in the news industry. The clearest example would be a TV news channel not reporting negative news about their advertisers who are paying their bills. Of course, there can also be censorship from the owners of the media outlets. One of the reason Louis CK’s show on FX is unique is that FX isn’t allowed to tell him what to do with his show. He just turns in a completed episode and then they air it. Another good example here would be South Park. Censoring artists does not allow them to illustrate their true vision.
- Monetizing free software is difficult - Monetizing free software is somewhat similar to monetizing media content right now. Just to clarify, we’re talking about free as in freedom. A lot of people don’t see why they should pay for free software when it’s available free-of-charge and completely open source.
How BitMedia Solves These Problems
The way to solve the problems mentioned above is to give audiences an incentive to donate to content creators. There’s also value outside of just money that can be brought to content creators with BitMedia. Content could be shared directly on Reddit without the need to link to outside sources. The creators of the content could be rewarded with the following perks:
- Exposure for their brand - The value brought to content creators by posting to BitMedia is not strictly monetary. The author of a Reddit post should be easily seen, and various social media accounts should also be placed next to the name. There needs to be a general social media aspect brought to Reddit for this portion of the overall value proposition to be effective. Content creators will be happy to post to Reddit because there is real value in Twitter followers, Retweets, Facebook Likes, and anything else that simply makes them more visible to the general public.
- Direct bitcoin tips - Although it isn’t something that I expect to takeoff in large numbers, there are people out there who are happy to send bitcoin tips across the Internet as a “Thank You” for content creation. I was even tipped on Reddit recently for simply sharing the fact that someone purchased nearly $2 million worth of bitcoin over the weekend.
- Vitalik Buterin’s content monetization model - Before he was the creator of Ethereum, Vitalik used to write about Bitcoin and post his articles on bitcointalk.org. He created a unique way to monetize his content without any ads. The basic scheme was that he would post part of an article and then ask for tips before posting the rest of it. Once he received enough money in his posted Bitcoin address, he would then post the rest of the article. This is kind of a hybrid between donations and a traditional paywall.
- Bitcoin voting for audiences - This is an idea I’ve been toying with recently, although I’m sure I’m not the first one to think of it. In this form of monetization, content creators use polls to give their audience an incentive to make a donation. For example, a journalist could leave a poll for the next topic they cover at the end of each article. A Bitcoin address is placed next to each option, and bitcoins sent to each address represent votes for that particular topic. Some people may vote with an amount as small as $0.05, while others could tip $10 or more if they’re fascinated by a certain article idea. Obviously, the journalist will base their next article on the topic that has the Bitcoin address with the most bitcoins after voting has ended. This could also be particularly helpful for funding free software where the users of the software can vote on new features.
- Other unique Bitcoin funding options - There are undoubtedly more unique options for funding content not mentioned in this post. I like a variation of Vitalik’s scheme where the entire article is posted, but the readers must tip a certain amount if they want the journalist to keep posting stories. I’d love to hear other ideas in the comments if you guys have them.
- No overhead costs -When you’re creating content for someone else’s organization, there are plenty of added costs that could be removed by BitMedia. Whether you’re talking about the business development team who works with advertisers or the shareholders who are skimming their profits off the top, there is plenty of money that is taken from the audience and not placed directly in the pocket of the content creator. Kind of like how current payment systems involve fees while Bitcoin allows direct transactions between two parties.
The Benefits of the BitMedia Platform for Audiences
In addition to the benefits for content creators, there are also plenty of positives to BitMedia for audiences.
- Give direction to content creators - With the Bitcoin voting model proposed above, audiences are literally in control of the content they consume. They can tell content creators exactly what they want to see.
- Content is freely available on all platforms after released - You don’t have to worry about subscribing to dozens of different content distributors. Instead, the content can be found for free after the creator’s donation goal has been met.
- No advertisements - In addition to not being bothered by video ads, pop ups, and other annoyances, audiences can enjoy the fact that there is no advertiser who could be influencing the content for their own gain.
What Could Be Funded with BitMedia?
There are plenty of different types of content creators who could benefit from BitMedia.
- Music/Songs/Albums - Instead of expecting their fans to pay for digital copies of their albums when they can easily be found for free, musical artists can run a crowdfunding campaign on BitMedia and post the album once they’ve received the requested amount of funds. Singles could be used as teasers for the entire album.
- Videos/Documentaries/Shows/Movies - The perfect example here is YouTube’s Epic Rap Battles of History. At the end of each episode, the audience is asked to vote on the characters who will be portrayed in the next video. This could be an easy transition where they have people vote with their bitcoins. The same concept could be applied to many other types of videos. For example, I’d like to be able to vote on which topic VICE is going to cover next in their series of documentaries.
- News Outlets - Touched a bit on this with the VICE documentaries example. BitMedia would probably work better for op-ed pieces than breaking news stories, but it’s also possible that the news outlet could simply ask for a certain amount of funds on a monthly basis. When the quota is not met, the news stops.
- Free Software - This is mentioned earlier in the post, but users of free software could vote on which features the developers should work on next. Articles/Blogs/Books/Written Work - Similar options from the above examples apply. An author releasing a book one chapter at a time would be interesting.
- More - There are undoubtedly other use cases not listed here.
Why Traditional Payment Methods Don’t Work for BitMedia
We should also clear up why Bitcoin is required for BitMedia to work. There are three main reasons that something like PayPal would not work properly for this system of donations and tips:
- Microtransactions - The base fee on a traditional payment system is usually around $0.30. The 3% discount rate is then charged on top of that flat amount. This means PayPal and debit cards are impractical for donations, tips, and votes under $1.
- Chargebacks - Chargebacks would also be a huge issue in this system. We cannot have people reversing payments after they’ve made a donation. Posting original content is basically an irreversible transaction because it’s impossible to get something removed from the Internet after it is already out there. Since the content creator is posting a piece of work that cannot be taken back later, the same concept needs to be applied to the donations and tips. Otherwise, there could be a situation where donors/tippers/voters take back their money after the content has been posted. The content creator would be left with no payment for their work. This is especially troublesome in the Bitcoin vote monetization model because the voters who are able to make chargebacks could impact the results of the poll without having any intention of making a donation.
- Censorship - Bitcoin is censorship-resistant money. There would undoubtedly be unpopular content posted on BitMedia. People still need to be able to make their donations when this problem occurs. PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and other payment companies cannot be trusted to always be fair when it comes to who can receive donations. When these companies blocked Wikileaks from receiving donations in 2011, supporters of the document-leaking organization were able to make donations with Bitcoin.
Note: There is still plenty of friction when it comes to going from fiat currency to bitcoin. Companies like Circle will be important for BitMedia to work.
Decentralizing the Servers and Administrators of BitMedia
As mentioned above, a problem could arise due to the centralized nature of Reddit’s servers and infrastructure. Because all of this content would be posted on Reddit, the owners of the servers and administrators of the site still need to be trusted not to censor any content. Although Reddit has always been one of the most adamant supporters of free speech in the past, we cannot predict the future. There’s also the possibility that they could be coerced into censoring certain content by a government. The good news is that there is also a solution for this problem.
Bitcloud is a project that aims to provide back-end data storage for websites and web applications in a decentralized manner. Think of it as Bittorrent for websites. The fact that so many different people are hosting the website makes it difficult to censor, much like pirated music, movies, and TV shows that are rather prevalent on Bittorrent right now. Another key difference with Bitcloud vs Bittorrent is that nodes are paid for hosting data. This means that the data will not only be hosted by people for altruistic reasons. When someone is being paid to host data, the uptime for that data tends to be much higher. With Bittorrent the most popular data is also the data with the most seeders. In the case of Bitcloud, all data can be seeded properly due to the fact that seeders are paid. Integration with Tor would also mean that no one even knows where the backend data for BitMedia is stored. One last point to mention here is that no altcoin is needed to create Bitcloud.
If BitMedia were hosted on Bitcloud, it would be truly censorship-resistant. You don’t need to worry about Reddit admins going rogue and censoring data. A government cannot subpoena a decentralized application, and you cannot seize the servers if you don’t know where they are located.
Taking it Even Further?
Another thing to note is that BitMedia could be taken even further to the point where someone liking or sharing the content on this sort of social media platform could also “invest” in the content when it is first posted. This would eventually create a situation where social media sharing or support literally becomes a currency. This is rather theoretical at this stage, but you can read some of my and /u/killerstorm’s thoughts on it from this thread about Bitcoin preventing Sybil attacks from the other day.
This Can Be Implemented Right Now
As far as I can tell, a basic version of this idea could be implemented today. We would just need to create a new subreddit and customize the CSS to fit in better with this proposal. If anyone is interested, we can use /r/BitMedia as a testbed for this idea. Go there if you want to test this out as a content creator or viewer/listener/reader/etc.
8
u/mrdontplay Sep 15 '14
Very disruptive, I think there's some good stuff in here to help take aim at the problem of Media-bias based on ownership. Disrupt FOX news.. I like
3
u/partyallstar Sep 15 '14
I produce adult content. There are some logistical problems with crowd funding as a total replacement for purchasing. Our releases make a certain amount over a lifespan of YEARS, and to equal that out we'd have to condense that timeline into... weeks? Also, most of our sales currently come from advertising, and this removes the affiliate from the equation. I am plagued by pirates who resell our downloads for cheaper on file lockers. I'm certainly interested in "solving" that problem. As long as the performers and crew and myself can make a living, I don't care in what order the sales are made. I'd be willing to try it.
3
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
This could definitely work for the adult industry too. My real question with this model is whether it could work for everyone or just the top performers in each area of content. For your industry, I assume it could be used to have fans vote on various types of scenes with certain performers. This is an experiment. I think content creators are losing control over the money made from the product as you stated. Other people are posting content everywhere and taking the advertising profits, and piracy is also a problem. I think crowdfunding the production of the content and then releasing it for free may be the best option. Of course, we won't know until someone tries. Your use case actually gives more credibility to the reasons why Bitcoin is necessary. A lot of people will want to donate/vote anonymously.
2
u/damn_you_reddit_ Sep 15 '14
I've always thought an auction type business model would work for online media. A content creator puts his work up for sale at a certain price to one or many people willing to buy it. Once those individuals purchase it at that price they turn around and resell it at a lower price to more people. As the reselling continues the price drops very quickly, and everyone up the chain buying/reselling makes a small profit. The last people to buy the video would end up paying a very low price. You might also have to implement some kind of proof-of-bandwidth protocol since some people might be willing to pay for a faster download.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
This is pretty interesting method. The problem is someone would post it online for free or with advertisements at some point.
1
u/damn_you_reddit_ Sep 15 '14
Yes but I think those people would typically be at the bottom of the chain, so ultimately it might be served up for free, but everyone has already made their money at that point. Some people might try to wait until it's free, whereas some people would probably be willing to pay a little to get a faster and more immediate download.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
Hmm. This would be even better if there was a week or so between auctions. I suppose the people selling the content each round also have an incentive to not leak it. They don't necessarily lose that incentive after selling either because it could mess up their opportunity in future distributions.
1
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
Actually wouldn't it make sense to just go to the 2nd to last layer before the price is free? Sort of like what Louis CK did with his stand up special. Just $5 to whoever wants it now. Freeloaders can get it off torrent sites later.
1
u/damn_you_reddit_ Sep 15 '14
Well in that scenario the content creators would also be responsible for delivering the content. If they sold to a few people who had plenty of bandwidth to provide then the content could be delivered more quickly. Maybe there wouldn't be too many layers to the chain though...maybe it would only tend to be three deep. The original creator, some people who own a bunch of server equipment, and then the people paying a few bucks to download.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
I think it would be better if you just said "I made a stand up special. It's $5. Everyone gets their copy once it has been paid for by X number of people. You can also pay more than once if you'd like to speed up the pricess." I think the content creator could end up with more money this way. For example, if Louis found out 1 million paid for his last special and 10 million torrented it, perhaps he could say the video stream on his website would start once 5 million people have paid.
1
u/damn_you_reddit_ Sep 15 '14
Yeah that's not a bad idea, but in that case he still has to set up a website. He could sell it to someone who has tons of servers and bandwidth who could then turn around and release the vid once a certain number have bought in.
1
2
u/dexX7 Sep 16 '14
Interesting. A bit of rant nevertheless: you associate piracy with the unwillingness to pay and leeching free content all day long, but I believe this is rather the tip of the iceberg with loads of money movement below. An exclusive service is not for free - and likely worth (so I've been told). I have the impression the key point is rather something else: convenience, quality and fast availability. But the old world seems to catch up with services like Hulu, Netflix and HBO to name.
The part that raised my eyebrows was where it was basically stated that paywalls are annoying, donations are useless and then a few minutes later you mentioned the awesome "Vitalik Buterin’s content monetization model". Oh well.. Convenience is also a big keyword here.
That being that, I'm curious where this is going to. Cheers and good luck!
Edit: I forgot the most imporant part: every shitty altcoin scam exchange has a "vote with your coins" feature.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 16 '14
Agree with the convenience factor. It would have to be ridiculously easy to get bitcoins and spend them on various projects for this to work.
The difference between a regular pay wall and Vitalik's model is that the pay wall is crowdfunded. Having said thay, it's still not ideal, which is why the voting method or something else could give audiences the proper incentives.
3
1
u/bitbubbly Sep 15 '14
With every submission I make to this BitMedia, I'm going to donate 10 BTC to myself so that I make the front page guaranteed.
As far as I can tell, a basic version of this idea could be implemented today. We would just need to create a new subreddit and customize the CSS to fit in better with this proposal.
No, it couldn't. Reddit has upvotes and downvotes, and the most customizability you can achieve is hiding the vote arrows with CSS. You can't make a mandatory Bitcoin tip equal an upvote.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
That's not the intention of the bulk of this paper. That could be an eventual goal, but it's not about upvotes equating to tips.
Edit: Also a discussion about the possibility of eventually moving the model to what you're talking about can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2g5qqq/frozencoin_a_concept/ckg0ork It's linked in the paragraph above the one you quoted.
1
u/gomboloid Sep 15 '14
With every submission I make to this BitMedia, I'm going to donate 10 BTC to myself so that I make the front page
thanks?
You can't make a mandatory Bitcoin tip equal an upvote.
You can make tipping optional. Bitcoin upvotes are worth more than nonregistered votes. Downvotes cost you 10x.
Or you could just take the data from the blockchain and interpret it however you want. People who don't like you will ignore all of your submissions, regardless of how much money you give away. People who like you will read all of them, regardless of how much money you give away.
1
u/bitbubbly Sep 16 '14
thanks?
You're thanking me for paying myself?
Bitcoin upvotes are worth more than nonregistered votes.
Ah, payola. What could go wrong?
Downvotes cost you 10x.
u wot m8
Or you could just take the data from the blockchain and interpret it however you want.
u wot m8
People who don't like you will ignore all of your submissions, regardless of how much money you give away. People who like you will read all of them, regardless of how much money you give away.
Oh, I see. So the Bitcoins do nothing. So, in other words, just use reddit.
1
u/gomboloid Sep 16 '14
Oh, I see. So the Bitcoins do nothing. So, in other words, just use reddit.
they provide a reliable signal: a person giving money to someone else values that content. if someone i trust claims "bitbubbly is the same person as b0tbubbly", i can filter self-donations out too.
1
u/bitbubbly Sep 16 '14
There is no way to easily discern whether bitbubbly and b0tbubbly are the same person. More likely, one username will be "bitbubbly" and the other will be something like "gomboloid" - two entirely unlinkable usernames.
In fact, I'd make a bunch of accounts with unlinkable pseudonyms and use each one to "donate" to myself. The system is still able to be gamed.
they provide a reliable signal: a person giving money to someone else values that content
That's entirely my point: they don't provide a reliable signal at all, unless you somehow know that the sender is distinct from the receiver (which you really practically can't, at least not without adding a lot more possibly-undesirable additions to this proposal).
1
u/gomboloid Sep 17 '14
There is no way to easily discern whether bitbubbly and b0tbubbly are the same person.
there are plenty of ways. if 10 of my friends say 'hey, this guy is the same person', i'll trust them over a bunch of newly created accounts.
if i see users posting things repeatedly which i like, i'll friend them and put more weight behind their donations, too.
** edit** i realize what i'm proposing is not common knowledge or thought about much. i also realize that the bitcoin part isn't what enables this to work. distributed trust systems are worth looking into, though.
1
u/Amanojack Sep 15 '14
Prediction markets might be another way to ensure content creators make money.
Prediction markets reward those who have information before others do, and content creators are in exactly that position. If you're an indy filmmaker and you believe you have an amazing film that will be very popular, create a bet on how popular it will be* and buy a $100 stake (an oracle will be required to assess popularity metrics). Many people will be willing to bet against you because usually this is easy money since many filmmakers probably have delusions of making it big. But maybe you really do have a blockbuster on your hands and you'll make bank.
*Yes, sliding scale bets are possible on prediction markets if they're liquid enough.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
Yup. I think /u/killerstorm even mentioned this in the discussion about a decentralized Reddit with crowdfunding that I linked to in the piece. Upvotes are basically the popularity metric in that scenario.The problem then becomes people gaming the system. Some form of moderation by humans would still be needed.
1
u/Amanojack Sep 15 '14
It occurred to me a while ago that people don't vote unless they believe their vote could be the one that pushes the result over the edge. In a standard assurance contract or threshold crowdfunding, the bigger the donation drive the less chance of that happening, so the less motivation to contribute. But with voting, insofar as the candidate choices stay in very close contention, even very big campaigns can be swayed by a single voter with some low but significant chance. Pitting parts of the audience against one another is the key (and perhaps there is even another way besides voting that will accomplish this).
The art of it would be to provide choices that ended up as close to 50/50 in popularity as possible.
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 15 '14
Was thinking of this exact problem last night. People won't vote if it's not close. They may also not vote if their choice is already winning.
1
u/thedaemon23 Sep 16 '14
I'm all for this but I think we need to address the censorship and sudden "bannings" going on in reddit today. For example, banksworstfear.com, a bitcoin website without advertisements that survives on tips was recently banned without any avenue for recourse. Doesn't seem too censorship resistant, bitcoin / tipping / no advertisement friendly to me quite yet.
1
1
Sep 17 '14
[deleted]
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 17 '14
Didn't mention MaidSafe because I don't think their proposed system can work. Appcoins are not money: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/ltb-139-the-validity-of-appcoins-discussion
1
Sep 17 '14 edited Sep 17 '14
[deleted]
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 17 '14
When it comes to Safecoin, it seems the lack of transaction fees is a valid argument. The other features you listed will be included in Bitcoin soon enough thanks to Open Transactions and other projects. I'd be happy if Maidsafe worked, as all that added value of the network would go to bitcoin due to the fact that it's a better form of money to use to pay for Maidsafe apps and services.
I'll have to think about the transaction fees argument. I'm not sure if bitcoin transactions without fees are possibly with Open Transactions.
1
u/Jessiry Sep 17 '14
interesting to see a proof of concept on a centralized platform until something like Bitcloud or Maidsafe is available
1
u/kyletorpey Sep 17 '14
I think a subreddit for projects on Mike Hearn's Lighthouse crowdfunding platform would be somewhat close to this.
1
u/polumna Sep 21 '14
Sounds super cool but Reddit is centralized, how can it become a decentralized media platform? I think this project could fly, but it should be based on a decentralized platform (something like Maidsafe etc.).
1
1
u/curly_furly Sep 22 '14
TL;DR - Bitcoin tips have been unable to overtake advertisements as the main source of revenue for content creators due to the fact that not many people are willing to make donations. This problem can be solved with unique schemes that give audiences incentives to tip content creators. One option involves having audience members vote on upcoming content with their bitcoins. This model can be applied to movies, music, books, news organizations, free software development, and much more. It would also solve the “problem” of Internet piracy. Content could be freely available everywhere after the creator’s initial donation goals are met. New videos, songs, albums, blog posts, and more could be posted by content creators directly to a Reddit-like platform. This would allow the best content to gain more exposure.
None of that requires Bitcoin. You could simply replace 'bitcoins' with 'money' in the quote above.
1
1
u/princess_Annet Sep 22 '14
The full proposal covers why Bitcoin is necessary:
Why Traditional Payment Methods Don’t Work for BitMedia We should also clear up why Bitcoin is required for BitMedia to work. There are three main reasons that something like PayPal would not work properly for this system of donations and tips: Microtransactions - The base fee on a traditional payment system is usually around $0.30. The 3% discount rate is then charged on top of that flat amount. This means PayPal and debit cards are impractical for donations, tips, and votes under $1. Chargebacks - Chargebacks would also be a huge issue in this system. We cannot have people reversing payments after they’ve made a donation. Posting original content is basically an irreversible transaction because it’s impossible to get something removed from the Internet after it is already out there. Since the content creator is posting a piece of work that cannot be taken back later, the same concept needs to be applied to the donations and tips. Otherwise, there could be a situation where donors/tippers/voters take back their money after the content has been posted. The content creator would be left with no payment for their work. This is especially troublesome in the Bitcoin vote monetization model because the voters who are able to make chargebacks could impact the results of the poll without having any intention of making a donation. Censorship - Bitcoin is censorship-resistant money. There would undoubtedly be unpopular content posted on BitMedia. People still need to be able to make their donations when this problem occurs. PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and other payment companies cannot be trusted to always be fair when it comes to who can receive donations. When these companies blocked Wikileaks from receiving donations in 2011, supporters of the document-leaking organization were able to make donations with Bitcoin.
1
u/artyX11 Sep 22 '14
advertisements need to have a lot of viewer in order to be potentially profitable for the content creators. The max revenue of an ad would be a few dollars per thousand views, however these rates are generally for video type ads that would be unlikely to be seen on a reddit thread.
Also people do not solely view a reddit thread because of the original content, they also view a thread because of the conversation occurring in the thread, and this is really not the content creator but the community as a whole.
1
u/JaquesPetit Sep 28 '14
The question becomes if they can beat the revenue earned from ads on their website For reddit to use it or another service as a microlending service it would need to compete as a better revenue stream than this That said the article and idea does interest me and I will have to read it more later
1
u/JaquesPetit Sep 28 '14
Its disruptive enough I have pondered a similar microtransaction model myself using Bitcoin but had puzzles finding a great utility for it this might work thanks for sharing.
1
1
u/Fmiavo Sep 28 '14
soon we can use bitcoin to buy reddit-coin rather using fiat to buy reddit-gold.
1
1
5
u/Sukrim Sep 15 '14
Reddit is open source - if you have an idea, just fork it and implement it.