Andre Engels wrote:

... When choosing between unwittingly accepting tainted money and forcing people to give up their complete financial privacy, I find the first option the least morally repugnant one.

"forcing people to give up their complete financial privacy" happens when people donate with a charge card? I guess that depends on the definition of "complete."

Todd Allen wrote:

... You do, of course, realize that any currency anyone accepts could at some point have been stolen?

Someone with more legal knowledge than I have should probably correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that US courts have recently drawn a sharp distinction between Bitcoins as "property," which can be illegal to receive if it has been stolen whether the recipient is aware of its status or not, as opposed to currency which is assumed to be free from such encumbrances unless the recipient is explicitly aware that it is tainted.

Frankly, bitcoin seems to be just another attempt to evade taxes, to me. Others may have a different impression. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that we should be encouraging unless there is evidence that taxes cause harm.