We have already agreed that we don't need to use CloudFlare so the point is rather moot but I would take a moment to defend CloudFlare.domob wrote:+1 I don't like CloudFlare for this reason among others (the main other reason being that we would hand them our TLS keys and be basically dependent on them, as far as I understand their system).namecoiner wrote:CloudFlare:
NoScript add-on users have difficulties browsing the site which is using CloudFlare hosting.
- No, we would not have to hand over our TLS keys to them even for TLS enabled sites.
- Noscript users have problems with CloudFlare's CAPTCHA page. Perhaps we should fault them for not using a CAPTCHA which degrades gracefully but one can choose to turn that functionality off and it would in no-way impact noscript users.
- Cloudflare was started by the people who run Project Honey Pot, an incredibly well-respected community run anti-spam project.
- A list of Cloudflare's customers include Spamhaus, WikiLeaks, Anonops, 4Chan, and (previously) both LulzSec and UG Nazi. They kept UG Nazi even after they doxed the CEO and broke into his gmail account so they could redirect 4Chan's twitter feed to their website (source).
Anyway, lets get hosting donations work that out! I use WePay for most of my collective money stuff (i.e. splitting bills w/ roommates) and they have a nice transparency feature but some Googling also turned up Clover Donations.