>  1. Mining pools can favor (conversely punish) transactions with a
>     charitable output
>  2. Auditing of organisations that are included into the default list of
>     charitable outputs would have to step up (needs to already)
>  3. On the negative side, this may give too much power in the hands of
>     developers in terms of who makes the list or who doesn't... adding
>     the ability for users to add organisation to this list seems very
>     important in terms of development and awareness.
>  4. People may not want to donate larger amounts of bitcoin to
>     organisations if they opt to fund via charity outputting... this may
>     be mitigated by sites devoted to tracking charitable outputting to
>     inform the community.
>  5. Validating that the addresses on the charitable outputs are/remain
>     controlled by the organisations... multi-signature addresses seem to
>     be a *must *here. 
>       * At the moment, only unSYSTEM is making use of them. 
>       * Plus organisations such as Wikileaks, SNI and TOR issue
>         addresses on a per user basis, so you shouldn't trust the
>         addresses I put down in the code until these organisations have
>         publicly proved that they control them.
>       * Using stealth addresses via DarkWallet may be a good idea
>         (purely in terms of key management from the organisation's POV),
>         but then it becomes difficult to audit.