I did it, I did it, I did it, yay!

A compromise that I find appealing and might implement for myself is giving a fixed percentage over a fixed amount, with that fixed percentage being relatively high (well above ten percent). You could also have multiple "donation brackets" with an increased marginal donation rate as your income increases.

We would need better informed and more intelligent voters for this to have much of an impact, and even then I doubt it would matter because high IQ, well informed voters already have a very good idea of what candidates will do when elected.

I would much rather have candidates take IQ and general knowledge tests than participate in honest debates. And in the near future what I would like to see is a DNA analysis of Presidential candidates to identify those with genes predisposing them to being sociopaths.

He also likes arguing with Jeff Kaufman about effective altruism.

Good at math, definitely not "gifted".

Don't think like this. You are an expert at quantum computing. 99% of the population doesn't know what quantum computing IS. You are probably 3-4 sigmas above the mean, which basically qualifies you to do anything. If you don't think of yourself as particularly smart, it is probably just because you are in contact with people who are 5-6 sigmas above the mean.

Really? Do you really think everyone who comes off as irrational based on a blog post of theirs that you read shouldn't be here?

There's irrationality and then there's faith-based epistemic insanity. This person actually states that he cannot accept any perceived challenge to their preferred theories. Seriously, read the blogpost. He/she is as rational as the most extreme Christian fundamentalist. Do you really think such folks could ever be productive contributors to this site?

It feels like most people have a moral intuition along the lines of "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people".

If it feels like that, you probably have a very provincial understanding of human moral intuitions. Haidt identified 6 moral foundations, only one of which is harm-based.

1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2. Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as proportionality.)
3. Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4. Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5. Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

made more money off Bitcoin

Request for information - should I take this to mean you sold them for dollars?

(I'm asking because I have some btc which I had forgotten about until recently and am wondering if this is the correct time to trade for dollar, but I haven't done any research on the topic and wouldn't really know where to start.)

Another possible critique is that the philosophical arguments for ethical egoism are (I think) at least fairly plausible. The extent to which this is a critique of EA is debatable (since people within the movement state that it's compatible with non-utilitarian ethical theories and that it appeals to people who want to donate for self-interested reasons) but it's something which merits consideration.

It sounds more like act utilitarianism to me. Rule utilitarianism is when you notice that lying usually has bad consequences, and therefore decide to lie even when lying has good consequences. Coming up with heuristics like "don't lie, unless you have a really good reason" or even "don't lie, even if you think you have a really good reason" is still something you do with the sole intent of improving the consequences. It is therefore act utilitarianism.