Doge Token : AKA the post Sporklin did not want to make.
At times Twitter is not the platform that allows the proper conveyance of engagement, 280 characters is generally not enough; especially for myself. Given the topic here I ask that you allow me the grace of a proper platform in order to do this in a manner that leaves little question to intention. I want to preface this given rarely do I have to do these in public. Myself, the Dogecoin Core Developers believe that the space is wonderful, diverse, creative, and engaging across the several thousands of assets that exist. It is neither my intention nor our intention to prohibit, attack, dissuade or otherwise disincline something from existing in the space. However every now and again projects do pop up that seem to want their "upstart" in the space to begin with attacking Dogecoin. As a community driven asset with deeply communal ties to the entire space there are moments where even we pause and ask for clarity. This can help to gauge intentions, cause and more than once has led to showing someone as a "bad actor" in the space. We have spent over half a decade working with the Doge/Dogecoin branding, there are many assets with the name which we believe only helps to engage further people into cryptocurrency. So Doge Token. Technology DogeCoin is technologically behind
However, it’s core technology has not been upgraded much, and it has not been updated in well over a year latest releases from 2015.
Github can be hard to manage, and understand. What I fail to fathom is how you missed that we have had 7 releases since 2015. Dogecoin Releases. Further for the coming 1.14 release there was active and ongoing communal interaction and input along the way as Dogecoin is a social consensus asset not just network/chain consensus based. Path to 1.14 Which for noting puts our public start into 1.14 barely a year beyond the 1.10 DogeParty release. (Which happened in 2016, where you state nothing has been done since 2015.) Further as is shown there in the above posting 1.16-dev shows work. 1.17-dev Shows work as of 11 days ago even as we are waiting on final push for 1.14. This all counters your claim that there has been no releases, that nothing has been upgraded much. If you would care to explain why your white paper states otherwise I would be willing to listen, especially given as it is rather public what we are doing, when we are doing it, and further more who is doing what. We are community based, and there are comments on both @dogecoin along with @dogecoin_devs both have been active in keeping communities updated. I sourced most of the postings for the large post from reddit, and that is only half of the updates. We have also spent time among the telegram communities, slack, discord, Steam communities, IRC communities across a span of multiple languages no less interacting, updating, and engaging with users. Rolling back into the initial statement, "Dogecoin is technologically behind". I am curious where you see this, personally. This was gone into recently, by someone else who screamed the same things. Reality of Dogecoin Perhaps you missed this as well? Doge Token lives on the Stellar blockchain
Stellar is the one of the fastest growing and largest blockchain platforms out there.
Stellar nodes/validators 43 have uptime in the past 24 hours. Dogecoin Nodes This private node saw 420 other ones in 24 hours. (There are other versions listed there, they are forked coins that did not change the basis so appear on our node relay maps.) Nevermind what our public nodes see daily. Do not take this as a hit to Stellar, it has been around since July 2014. It is old in the space which is amazing it has lasted given how many projects die. However stating that it is one of the fastest growing and largest blockchains, is a bit of a stretch. It is a rather creative stretch in reality. I understand they function differently than Dogecoin in their handling, still "largest blockchain platforms out there"; just to note. ETH 6439 July 2015 BCH 786 BTCU 698 August 2017 / January 2016 BSV 485 November 2018 I got fairly far down the list on CMC and to continue seemed overly harsh as the trend continued.
Constant updates and support further improve the Stellar blockchain platform.
Factual they also do micro releases (small tweak releases) and they do master branch implementation and developmental work. A bit different than many things in the space.
Shibe loves Stellar.
It is a bit mutual. Dogecoin is such an interesting blockchain and serious project, that peek the advisors we have ties, old ones. Even as Stellar grew over the years more than a few of their services did drops to Dogecoin just due to the history between the assets. OneCred rip now This was one of the early services for Stellar. PoW vs Green Tech DogeCoin: Much Hash, Such Work
Even though DogeCoin has many orders of magnitude fewer transactions and smaller transactional value, it now exceeds over 20TH/s in terms of hashrate.
You are not wrong, in fact the other day we were one of the tops for hashrate in the entire space. It has been a long while since we were near 20TH/s though hashrate 9/22/2017 was the last time we were under 20TH/s. Just as a note, more transactions does not mean more energy spent as the energy spent is per block which contains multiple transactions.
The amount of electricity wasted to power stagnant technology negatively impacts the environment
You seem to have missed that Dogecoin is AuxPoW, this means that Dogecoin mining is a byproduct of Litecoin mining. Which is why our hashrates are generally close. This also takes the energy "waste" down to running a node, which most networks in the space have. Deciding it is wasteful simply for your narrative in Dogecoin's case; seems short sighted and a bit targeted.
and reduces mining rewards.
Given there is a very low energy cost via AuxPoW, there is not a reduction in mining rewards. Further given Dogecoin entered the "legacy" mining period we are beyond halvening, we are forever to the 10k block rewards which facilitate ongoing transactional functionality. Transaction fees, along with block rewards go to the miners; there is no reduction to the mining rewards for the miners.
Despite all this waste
Given the network is rather efficient, I do not understand the implication of waste.
DogeCoin is still theoretically much less secure than Stellar.
Based around what theoretical reference? Dogecoin is five and a half years old, in actual reality of functional existence ..Dogecoin has not had an attack that in any manner made the blockchain less secure. Further more blockchain audits, independent security reviews, network health reviews tend to be part of the listing process for the higher level compliant functioning exchanges. To date we have yet to fail one, shutter or even has a questionable passing. You state Dogecoin is insecure in theory.. Did you miss that Dogecoin follows Bitcoin's upstream? The codebase is public, if you wish to state we are insecure I will ask you for the proof of your claims, it is a rather grave implication to make without cause. I assume you have found something everyone else has missed, care to share? Doge Token: Such Green, Much token Transparency and Safety DogeCoin: Much scam, Such Sad
Remember the days of tipbots. Yes? Well we’re sure things didn’t end very well for the most avid tippers.
Pardon? I ask this honestly as we have had multiple tipbots ongoing for multiple platforms; with no issues in assorted communities that have had no issues. Surely you are aware that the tipbots, are external, third party offerings; they are unattached and uninvolved in the actual Dogecoin project. I state this because you seem to be of the mind that because something happened externally, on third party offerings, by third party developers; that it somehow reflects on Dogecoin itself.
Applications built on DogeCoin are often closed source and non-contract enforced.
We only mourn for the nice shibes who were victimized by these viles scammers.
Broad statements are made here in relation to all the tipbots. The one that did have issues, you seem to have missed was not actually tied to the project. Further more it was not just a tipbot that was impacted but an entire company. DogeTipBot. Doge Token: Such Clear, Much Trust
Doge Token cannot be attacked with 51% attack and this makes us invulnerable.
You are correct, it does not take a 51% attack to take Doge Token down. It takes sadly removing two nodes from the Stellar network down to take everything, in the fullest down. Due to their more centralized nature of issuance, and operation the base network under Doge Token is publicly known to have several issues. Recently Stellar had a review by an external third party. Stellar security which goes on to detail several known issues in relation to the base functionality methods of Stellar. Understanding that on the base, anyone can claim anything noting that David himself came out to reply seems important. Further adding to this is just what KAIST is along with why it is important to note that it was not just random people making these claims. Stellar exploit allowed 2.2bn Lumens to be created 2017. This was an onchain direct exploit. Ongoing issues with Stellar, one which related to SDEX where Doge Token exists bug reporting. Stellar Dex had an issue disclosed, which rather went interestingly. Now the very important distinction here, what I have listed above are on chain issues, they are flaws exploits, problems related to the base code of functionality of Stellar itself; not third party issues. They are also public knowledge to be issues do please do not assume I am taking a swing at their project. In the interest of disclosure there have been third party troubles relating to Stellar as well. There was the BlackWallet hack Jan 2018 hack that resulted in 400kUSD stolen.
This makes Doge Token more trust-worthy than DogeCoin.
I will note that your entire white paper is based around false claims, baseless speculation, very easily disproved comments about the Dogecoin project, and further more implied relations which are not the actual basis of anything. We have tried in vain repeatedly to contact your project, and you have resisted. I understand the space is huge, in fact we find it wonderful that it is so diverse. What we pause at, and what will always pause at are projects that make baseless claims, attacks, spread misinformation and bluntly put, lie. Whatever your intentions are this is not the best way to step into the space, especially given we have already had to answer for your projects comments, and we are also very curious why you took a logo without credit to the artist. In terms of trust? Dogecoin has been here for over half a decade, our engagements are public, our codebase is public, our communications. Our communities are user driven, our third party platforms are also user driven. Where do you find fault in the trust-worthiness given who we are is rather public, we engage in the space openly as people, we are honest, direct and very proactive in relation to the entire userbase. Sadly, the same cannot be said for you. With this it is our hope that you do correct your statements, that you do make things clearer, further more crediting the artist of your logo would also be kindly. Your methods are deceptive, your entire whitepaper is made up of libelous commentary. I do hope we can find a middle ground that does not take this much further given your stance thus far as been to mislead users by making grossly incorrect comments to further your own personal gains.
Abstract Merged mining refers to the concept of mining more than one cryptocurrency without necessitating additional proof-of-work effort. Merged mining was introduced in 2011 as a boostrapping mechanism for new cryptocurrencies and countermeasures against the fragmentation of mining power across competing systems. Although merged mining has already been adopted by a number of cryptocurrencies, to this date little is known about the effects and implications. In this thesis, we shed light on this topic area by performing a comprehensive analysis of merged mining in practice. As part of this analysis, we present a block attribution scheme for mining pools to assist in the evaluation of mining centralization. Our findings disclose that mining pools in merge-mined cryptocurrencies have operated at the edge of, and even beyond, the security guarantees offered by the underlying Nakamoto consensus for extended periods. We discuss the implications and security considerations for these cryptocurrencies and the mining ecosystem as a whole, and link our findings to the intended effects of merged mining. Bibliography  Coinmarketcap. http://coinmarketcap.com/. Accessed 2017-09-28.  P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: Design and implementation of a global naming system with blockchains. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/BlockstackDesignandImplementationofaGlobalNamingSystem.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.  G. Andersen. Comment in "faster blocks vs bigger blocks". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  L. Anderson, R. Holz, A. Ponomarev, P. Rimba, and I. Weber. New kids on the block: an analysis of modern blockchains. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06530.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-07-04.  E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.  A. Back, M. Corallo, L. Dashjr, M. Friedenbach, G. Maxwell, A. Miller, A. Poelstra, J. Timón, and P. Wuille. Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. http://newspaper23.com/ripped/2014/11/http-_____-___-_www___-blockstream___-com__-_sidechains.pdf, 2014. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  A. Back et al. Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure. http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  S. Barber, X. Boyen, E. Shi, and E. Uzun. Bitter to better - how to make bitcoin a better currency. In Financial cryptography and data security, pages 399–414. Springer, 2012.  J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Böhme. Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.  I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin developer guide- transaction data. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#term-merkle-tree. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin protocol documentation - merkle trees. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Merkle_Trees. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  Bitcoin community. Bitcoin protocol rules. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules. Accessed: 2017-08-22.  V. Buterin. Chain interoperability. Technical report, Tech. rep. 1. R3CEV, 2016.  W. Dai. bmoney. http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.  C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Bitcoin transaction malleability and mtgox. In Computer Security-ESORICS 2014, pages 313–326. Springer, 2014.  Dogecoin community. Dogecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/dogecoin/  A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.  A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wüst, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 3–16. ACM, 2016.  I. Giechaskiel, C. Cremers, and K. B. Rasmussen. On bitcoin security in the presence of broken cryptographic primitives. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), September 2016.  J. Göbel, H. P. Keeler, A. E. Krzesinski, and P. G. Taylor. Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Performance Evaluation, 104:23–41, 2016.  E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pages 129–144, 2015.  Huntercoin developers. Huntercoin reference implementation. https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  B. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols, Apr. 8 2008. US Patent 7,356,696; Accessed: 2017-06-05.  M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.  A. Judmayer, N. Stifter, K. Krombholz, and E. Weippl. Blocks and chains: Introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Synthesis Lectures on Information Security, Privacy, & Trust, 9(1):1–123, 2017.  A. Juels and J. G. Brainard. Client puzzles: A cryptographic countermeasure against connection depletion attacks. In NDSS, volume 99, pages 151–165, 1999.  A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski Jr. Pors: Proofs of retrievability for large files. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 584–597. Acm, 2007.  H. Kalodner, M. Carlsten, P. Ellenbogen, J. Bonneau, and A. Narayanan. An empirical study of namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design. In WEIS, 2015.  G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, and S. Capkun. Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 906–917. ACM, 2012.  G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Čapkun. Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.  A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.  S. King. Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work. July 7th, 2013.  T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. Pérez, B. E. Granger, M. Bussonnier, J. Frederic, K. Kelley, J. B. Hamrick, J. Grout, S. Corlay, et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In ELPUB, pages 87–90, 2016.  Lerner, Sergio D. Rootstock plattform. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Rootstock-WhitePaper-Overview.pdf. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  Y. Lewenberg, Y. Bachrach, Y. Sompolinsky, A. Zohar, and J. S. Rosenschein. Bitcoin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 919–927. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2015.  Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  I. Maven. Apache maven project, 2011.  G. Maxwell. Comment in "[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...". https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  S. Meiklejohn, M. Pomarole, G. Jordan, K. Levchenko, D. McCoy, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference, pages 127–140. ACM, 2013.  S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.  A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz. Permacoin: Repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 475–490. IEEE, 2014.  A. Miller, A. Kosba, J. Katz, and E. Shi. Nonoutsourceable scratch-off puzzles to discourage bitcoin mining coalitions. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 680–691. ACM, 2015.  B. Momjian. PostgreSQL: introduction and concepts, volume 192. Addison-Wesley New York, 2001.  Myriad core developers. Myriadcoin reference implementation. https://github.com/myriadcoin/myriadcoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  S. Nakamoto. Merged mining specification. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification, Apr 2011. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  Namecoin Community. Merged mining. https://github.com/namecoin/wiki/blob/masteMerged-Mining.mediawiki#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change. Accessed: 2017-08-20.  Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2016.  K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.  K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.  R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 643–673. Springer, 2017.  D. Pointcheval and J. Stern. Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. Journal of cryptology, 13(3):361–396, 2000.  Pseudonymous("TierNolan"). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.  K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.  M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.4980, 2011.  M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.  R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515–532. Springer, 2016.  Sathoshi Nakamoto. Comment in "bitdns and generalizing bitcoin" bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  O. Schrijvers, J. Bonneau, D. Boneh, and T. Roughgarden. Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In FC ’16: Proceedings of the the 20th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, February 2016.  B. Sengupta, S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai. Retricoin: Bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, page 14. ACM, 2016.  N. Szabo. Bit gold. http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.at/2005/12/bit-gold.html, 2005. Accessed: 2017-09-28.  M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.  Unitus developers. Unitus reference implementation. https://github.com/unitusdev/unitus. Accessed: 2017-08-22.  M. Vukolić. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. bft replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pages 112–125. Springer, 2015.  P. Webb, D. Syer, J. Long, S. Nicoll, R. Winch, A. Wilkinson, M. Overdijk, C. Dupuis, and S. Deleuze. Spring boot reference guide. Technical report, 2013-2016.  A. Zamyatin. Name-squatting in namecoin. (unpublished BSc thesis, Vienna University of Technology), 2015.
Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 102 - Weekly Wrapup #8
Hey all! GoodShibe here! Here's your week, all wrapped up in a bow! And for another Shibe's take on things, please take a moment to pop by and subshibe to http://www.dogecoinnewsletter.com/ - he's having his first moment of doubt as a writer (ah, I remember my first... don't worry, there will be many more!), so let's all give him a bit of encouragement, okay? ;D) Many thanks to all of the incredible Shibes who came forward to help with my first Pre-Weekly Wrapup Prep thread - I really appreciate the help! Announcements
[VeryMuchWow] - The first online/print Dogecoin magazine is out now! It's got an interview with me and a whole bunch of other great things inside! (Plus the art is incredible!)
[Savedogemas has finished payouts!] - It took a little longer than expected - and was a much bigger job than was expected - but it got done! Huge congrats to NeutralityMentality and his team - and our community who donated! - for proving that Shibes take care of their own. I hope those who've had less than nice things to say re: this initiative take a moment to make amends. It's important to doubt and to question but when we get it wrong, we need to make it right, okay?
Did I forget anything? Of course I did! Please let me know in the comments and I'll add it! It's 10:00AM EST and we're at 72.25% of DOGEs found. Our Global Hashrate is holding steady at ~59 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is bouncing between ~778 and ~904~ If you want to get yourself some DOGEs, now would be a great time to do it! Finally, if you'd like to help protect the Dogecoin network by Mining Defensively, to be there, helping to protect our Global Hashrate, no matter the cost, please join us here. And if you'd like to help protect the network but are unable to mine, there are still LOTs of ways to help! Please join us here! As always, I appreciate your support! GoodShibe
So there's been an unbelievable multitude of threads ranging from "Shibes, is Ð1 = $1 possible?" to "Shibes, Ð1 can never be $1, stop dreaming." first of all, never tell a shibe not to dream. second of all, much much more than the ratio of dogecoins to bitcoins to dollars determines the exchange rate of a currency, and that is the subject of today's shibenomics lesson. Everyshibe has probably heard of GDP, but to define it very quickly - the gross domestic product is the value of all goods and services produced in an economy over a period of time. Normally, GDP is calculated per year, but for the analysis in this article and dogecoin in general, i find it more constructive to think of GDP per day. Now, how can we possibly find out what the GDP of dogecoin is? The USD has a whole bureau of economic analysis to do that and they still get it wrong half the time... Herein lies one of the many beauties of the blockchain. The block chain is like a public ledger of every transaction in dogecoin, EVER - which means we can just find the last block with a transaction on Wednesday, January 15th, and the last block with a transaction on Thursday, January 16th, and every transaction in between is part of the GDP for Jan 16th. note: shibes already versed in economics will point out that some of these transactions may not be for goods and services, but rather conversions from USD or BTC, and some of them may be double counted because they are buying an ingredient for something they plan to sell later for more dogecoins - these objections are somewhat correct, but systematically overestimating GDP means you can still measure GDP change over time, which is what we're really concerned about, and conversions from other currencies are our equivalent of exports So, as of now, our GDP on January 16th was a whopping 46,793,497,531 DOGE ($18,078,761 USD). Before you object about pay-it-forward threads and tipping and such, let me remind you - tips are a micro-transaction for a service (the service of making you smile :) ) and pay-it-forward threads are the shibe version of state-sanctioned lottery - which is the service of gambling. Now, gambling and entertainment an economy do not make, but 18 million dollars is a pretty big deal. Only bitcoin, litecoin, and quarkcoin have higher GDPs per day than dogecoin, and among those only dogecoin has a reasonably sustainable average transaction value (~$200 vs >$8000). Ok, so now we know dogecoin has a GDP, and that shibes can feel pretty good about it. Even more impressive, dogecoin GDP has grown from $6.74 million on December 18th to $18 million today - 3.22% per day - at current growth rates, our GDP this time next year would be $1.78 TRILLION (11% of the US economy). Now this is probably unsustainable, but even growing at 20% of our current growth rate for a year would leave us only behind bitcoin in GDP per day. Now let's consider market cap - the first thing that is striking about dogecoin isn't that its 6th most valuable in terms of market cap - its that dogecoin is the only crypto who's GDP exceeds its market cap, and that too by a whopping 62%. This means that for every 1 dogecoin you spent today, 61.7% of that dogecoin was passed on, and then passed on again, and so on. The velocity of money in the doge economy is ludicrous, and it confers a high degree of stability unto our economy, so kudos all around! A fast velocity of money not only helps fight changes in prices, it also makes it possible to post very high GDP numbers without having a large monetary base. Apart from this, its also worthwhile to note that our market cap in USD has grown by around 3.6% per day, while the number of dogecoins added to circulation grows by around 2% per day - so despite all the mining, dogecoin has been appreciating in value quite rapidly in value. On a more theoretical note, it is worth spending a moment to consider PPP (purchasing power parity). In high school economics, PPP means that a big mac in the United States should cost the same amount of real value as a big mac in China, and that the exchange rates will move to reflect that reality. In reality, PPP is more of a goal than a law - it's pretty hard to buy a big mac in China and bring it to the United States so that you get your food cheaper at lunch. In cryptoworld, however, PPP is the law - a bitcoin must cost the same amount in litecoins, dollars, and dogecoins, and the exchange rates will change to reflect that. PPP has so far been strongly determined by the BTC, LTC, DOGE triangle, as there is still not a large volume USD/DOGE exchange to allow arbitrage between the USD/BTC/DOGE (arbitrage is the force that makes PPP a law). Thankfully, a DOGE/USD exchange is probably just around the corner, and so soon we should see DOGE/USD and DOGE/BTC stabilize a bit because of this. PPP also extends to the world of mining - a kh/s mined on one currency will try to be worth as much as a kh/s mined on another currency - the best example of this is multipool. Right now, it is highly profitable to mine dogecoins because of the strong economy & exchange rate and the low block difficulty, compared to other alt coins relatively weak exchange rates and higher difficulties. Each coin has a predetermined global hash rate it will support based on its coin reward and target block time, and uses the difficulty to keep the reward & timing schedule intact. What this means is that as more miners work on dogecoin, it becomes less profitable to mine doge unless its value relative to the other cryptos goes up - and this is the cause for the cycles of highs and lows we see in DOGE/BTC. These cycles will probably not stop after the February 14th block halving, but they will be occuring at higher and higher valuations. It's a point of shibe pride to mention that of all the cryptos, dogecoin probably has the least wealth concentration - the top 100 transactions in dogecoin are only 3.15% of the daily transaction value, whereas for other currencies that number can reach near 50%. In conclusion, it'll probably be disappointing to hear that I have no clue where DOGE/USD or DOGE/BTC will be in a week, much less when it will hit 1 dogecoin per 1 USD. What I can say, and what should be evident from the numbers, is that dogecoin is developing a strong economic foundation unlike any of the other altcoins, and is much less seedy than bitcoin's early economy. Some of the core difficulties of dogecoin going forward are going to be maintaining our ludicrous velocity of money, which means finding and developing new markets for tipping, diversifying our economy away from mainly tipping while keeping a focus on micro-transactions, and creating a more effective store of value besides hoarding coins in a wallet or giving them away in PIF threads and waiting for them to come back. TL;DR - TO THE MOON! statistics used in this article are available on: http://bitinfocharts.com/
We're at 94% version 3 blocks being mined, vs 6% version 2: http://dogeversion.plddr.eu/ At 95%, any further version 2 blocks which are mined will be rejected by the network (the sort fork). This is important to do because it fixes the security issue that led to Peercoin forking back in November: https://wiki.peercointalk.org/index.php?title=Peercoin_blockchain_fork_of_2015-11-09 If you are running Dogecoin Core 1.8.3 or 1.10, Multidoge 0.16 or the Android wallet (latest), you're fine. If you're running any older version of Dogecoin Core, and especially if you're mining, you MUST update. There's a lot of security fixes in the new clients, as well as this block update. If you can move to Dogecoin Core 1.10, please do so, and 1.8.3 is available as an alternative for anyone who cannot. On first run 1.10 will reindex the blocks you've already downloaded (rebuilding the index used to find blocks quickly on disk), which takes a while, but it only happens the first time - while this runs it will show you your balance as of the last block it's indexed, so don't panic if your balance isn't correct until the reindex finishes. As always, back up your wallet before starting. Lastly, one of the big pools that's out of date is CleverMining, and we haven't had any luck contacting them to get them to upgrade. If you have contact details for them, and could pass along this notice, it would be appreciated. If you're mining with them, please check if they're paying out correctly, their BitcoinTalk thread is filling with people with problems: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=448649.5980
from here I want to know what you think of my idea, and how I can improve it. I'm working on something I'm calling the yip! meta-protocol (yes with the exclamation point) I'm not ready to release the details until I'm sure it works! but this is what I think I'll do:
How to tell if something is a yip!
There will be a header of 20 bytes in an output tx script. the first four bytes of the custom hash will be "yip!" in ASCII/UTF8, and then two bytes for the major version (v1.8) and minor version (v1.8). Then there will be some flags for encryption, compression (so you can pay less for the same message), etc.
As I've said before, this'll cost most likely 1.00000001 doge per 20 characters plus 1.00000001 doge for the header, which turns out, given average text lengths, to be waaaaayyyyyyyyy cheaper than any text plan I've heard of. This, while not free, will make communications so much easier for poorer people who can't stand around getting gouged by telecoms with their friggin' $0.20 per text pricing.
Public-key encryption (the same thing we do for https ssh etc.) of the recipient should be fine, and non-encrypted would be considered "public" and anyone can browse through it; think VM vs PM, tweets vs private messages, etc.
Without any new changes, it would still be a great deal of messages before you hit the 500kb cap per block (500,000/300 = 1,660 messages per minute, ~1,500 messages if you include how much transactions go through etc). It's not just forcing miners to work harder; if the network is maxed out purely by messages, you can earn an extra 3k~4k doge which might not be a lot but is an extra 30%~40% income on top of the 10k block reward. If prices ever reach the moon like we want them to, it could mean that there is an easier ROI for mining. It can potentially give back somewhat profitable mining to the average shibes again (although that's probs not going to last once the rich shibes get their paws on even more stuff). Perhaps if we remove the hardcap on Doge block size (not too unthinkable) we could potentially double, triple, quadruple the profits of Doge. Though by this point you know I'm just having a wet dream of being able to mine profitably again so don't bet too hard on it. If we wanted real capacity a la Twitter or Facebook, we could make an extension protocol via a header backwards-compatible with all Doge past v1.8. This would mean a sudden hard-fork once activity on yip gets to max out the block size regularly. I don't know if people are willing to deal with all that, or if this will even be successful enough to warrant that.
How it to would work
A new version of Doge would have four options: full node/complete reference (all transactions plus messages), half node/public reference (all transactions plus public messages with no encrypted messages), light node/private chats (all transactions plus relevant/decodable messages), and feather node/empty reference (only financial transactions, no dust transactions headed with Yip! A transfer of more than one doge with Yip at the end is okay).
How would you get the full node, if some nodes don't have all the relevant information?
Well, for starters, you would make a merkle root and trim the unnecessary branches so that the tx size is smaller. Original whitepaper section 7~8 describes a way to trim blocks without breaking the hash; we could do this for "bloat" tx / yip! txs so they are essentially "discarded" for people who don't want or can't have lots of space taken up by the blockchain. This naturally requires somewhat of a centralization (though it's not that bad – anyone can become one of the "centralized" nodes so it's not like we're trusting third-parties here), which means complete references must be kept around the world. I'm sure this wouldn't be too bad, considering we have sort of a "Node project" going on to establish a strong Dogecoin network anyways. For those not willing to download an entire petabyte of what essentially amounts to inane bs, they can ping the networks for their version of the blockchain they want. Here is how the protocol pings the network. Referencing here we see that user-agent can be arbitrarily long ( up to around 18 exabytes, but I don't even have that much storage for torrents). So, using this, adding a "yip!" argument to the end would say that you want all the yips. "yip?" (e.g.) would mean public, "yip." (e.g.) would mean private, and no yip! argument would give you the feather node. If you send out no yip, then caught-up nodes will assume you're not up-to-date (i.e. v1.8) even if you are up to date, so they will weed out all the msg txs and send you only the trimmed trees. If you send out a "yip", then the nodes will assume the level (if they do not have enough information to send back the yips e.g. a private-reference node gets a request for a public-reference node, they will forward the alert to someone else). I feel like this is a good idea but you know, I've never been a person to have good ideas.
This posts explains some dos and don'ts about what to post on /Bitcoin . First lets start with... Messaging mods Modmail is for:
Whatever you want, please say hai :)
Modmail is not for:
Asking general questions Ask away
Reporting obvious spam submissions (that's what the Report button is for) Please report and mail scams as quickly as possible
Advertisements on the subreddit (it is handled through Reddit, not us) We might be able to help for free
Help with shadowbans (again, that's Reddit, not us. Contact them)
"Can I get a flair?" - No, at the moment we are not giving anyone flair on the subreddit Yes, create one and ye shall receive
"Can you add my subreddit to the sidebar?" - If you are a local Bitcoin subreddit, we can add you to the wiki. If you are not a Bitcoin-related subreddit, 99% chance the answer is no. If you are a Bitcoin-related subreddit, we only add subreddits that are established - if you have less than a few hundred subscribers and less than a post a day, the answer is most likely no. Beyond that, we can talk. Yes, if it is not a scam and related to dogecoin
"Can you link to my website from the sidebar?" - No We'll consider adding it to the resources lists available
Submissions Please don't post:
Ask to be stickied - it's like asking for upvotes. People don't like it when you ask for upvotes.
"Should I buy Bitcoin?" / "Is it still worth investing in Bitcoin?" - You shouldn't take financial advice from the Internet, you need to figure this out for yourself
"What about altcoin X?" / "Should I buy altcoin X?" / "You should buy altcoin X!" - This is a very big topic in itself. Short answer is no yes under most circumstances if dogecoin. For a longer explanation, please read my blog entry and the accompanying reddit submission for discussion on the topic.
Asking for money - unless you are a reputable charity, your post will be treated like spam you don't need to ask
Complaints about not buying Bitcoins when they were $X/BTC - nobody cares
Referral links - your post will be treated like spam
"BUYBUYBUY"/"SELLSELLSELL" - you will be treated like a troll
Submissions or posts with curse words directed at someone - don't insult other people. Your posts will be treated like spam otherwise. Occasional expressions like "holy shit this is awesome!" are tolerated in moderation.
"Can I buy less than 1 bitcoin dogecoin?" - The answer is "yes, you can purchase as little as 0.00000001 BTC Ð at a time, you don't have to buy a whole coin, similarly how you can buy a gram of gold, you don't need to buy a whole gold bar"
Memes - memes are allowed, but some people may not like you for posting them. Be sure to use /Bitcoinmemes as well
Information about all-time-highs, price spikes, crashes and so forth - 90% of the time, someone has already posted about it. Check /bitcoin/new first before posting.
Questions about help with a particular website or business - /Bitcoin is not tech support for any business, you're better off contacting the support of the business in question through their forums or ticket system
What to do if you see...
Spam - click "report" underneath the submission, vote accordingly. Don't message mods unlessthespam is subtle or needs context
Repost - vote accordingly, click "report"
A post from the "don't" list above - direct the posted to a proper subreddit if applicable (for questions and newbie posts), vote and report accordingly otherwise
A post that is allowed on this subreddit but you don't like it being here - vote accordingly, don't report it. If it is allowed, the mods will not remove the post. Your votes shape what submissions get the most exposure - upvote the posts you want to see more of, downvote the ones you want to see less of.
Read the sidebar for community rules - following them will make everyone's day better.
Be sceptical of any news without credible sources - a lot of bad people are trying to play on your emotions by fabricating fake stories. Be sceptical of any story without a credible citation, especially when it is related to economic or legal side of things.
Thank you for your attention. Post responsibly, vote on all submissions, live and let live, have fun.
Dogecoin. Unlike Dash, the value of Dogecoin is not dependent on the market rates of Bitcoin. Young and unique, it was initially developed in 2013 as a ‘joke currency’ (an Internet meme by the name ‘doge’, featuring the image of the Japanese dog Shiba Inu and inscribed with broken English characters) but became popular over time and made it to the list of serious payment gateways. Dogecoin was created by programmer Billy Markus from Portland, Oregon, who hoped to create a fun cryptocurrency that could reach a broader demographic than bitcoin. In addition, he wanted to distance it from the controversial history of other coins, mainly bitcoins. At the same time, Jackson Palmer, a member of Adobe Systems' marketing department in Sydney, Australia, was encouraged on Twitter ... The bitcoin wiki’s mining hardware comparison page is a good place to go for rough information on hash rates for different hardware. When choosing a hardware, it’s worth looking at your device ... Bitcoin vs Ripple is a battle between two cryptocurrencies which on the face of it you’d think would be similar, but which in fact aren’t. Here’s what they are and here’s how they differ. Bitcoin. Bitcoin was first released in 2009. The identity of its creator is not known, but whoever it was used the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin vs Ripple is a battle between two cryptocurrencies which on the face of it you’d think would be similar, but which in fact aren’t. ... Cloud Mining Bitcoin Mining Bitcoin Cash Mining Litecoin Mining Ethereum Mining Ripple Mining Monero Mining Dogecoin Mining Dash Mining Aeon Mining Grin Mining Beam Mining zCash Mining.
EARN LIFETIME BITCOIN/ MINING SITE RUNNING SINCE 2017 / TRUSTED PAYING SITE 100 % / GIVEAWAY - Duration: 11:03. knowledge box Recommended for you free Dogecoin mining 2020 , cryptocurrency mining, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum. TikTok trend. altcoin me. ... New Free Dogecoin Mining Site 2020 ... This is an update video to my dogecoin mining vid and a quick review of my new L3+ scrypt miner from bitmain Prohasing.com Earn free BTC with https://goo.gl/A9nsGL You can earn 4.08% annually with ... Hi Everyone Today i Tell You About New Free Dogecoin Cloud Mining Site #dogemining its totally #freedoge #dogecoin #earn money online site In this video i show you live payment Proof Also Hope you ... I mined cryptocurrency full-time for over a year, this is a story of my journey navigating mining cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Zcash and many mo...