Dogecoin has the same design flaw of a hardcoded block size as bitcoin, and would hit the same limitation if it became popular (although, dogecoin mines a block every 1 minute as opposed to bitcoin's 10, so it could support 10x more tps before hitting said limit).
There is one speaker who Talks about refractorating, sorry I forgot his name, who always leads with this: [if we changed this constant the function could also do this and we can save a lot of code.] "And what do we call a constant that changes? A variable!" And than he uses it as a parameter. Reminded me of him.
It's a great crypto: to copy paste from an earlier comment, DOGE has the same UI as BTC as it is based on the same software (so just as secure and easy to add if you already support BTC payments), but with more digits (no need for satoshis as the smaller unit), lowest prices (people do not want to own fractional number of a coin like 1/100 of a BTC, they want integers), widely available on most exchange due to having existed for a long time...
There is a strong usecase, at least as strong as LTC. I see it as a strong contender for the 3rd crypto, as a medium of exchange.
Also, the community has refused before to reduce the emission rate (which would advantage holders), meaning they remain open minded.
Given that and their past involvement with various charities DOGE has all my support: when it started increasing 2 months ago due to the WSB crowd, I deployed a few full nodes to give a hand as people were complaining how long it took to sync the full chain.
It is nowhere even remotely near as secure as Bitcoin. Scrypt mining is massively insecure verification when compared to the SHA256 verification provided by Bitcoin. It's as secure as Litecoin, and Litecoin is many magnitudes less secure of a chain than Bitcoin.
Could you expand on how a fixed rate of monetary issue would drive inflation to zero? Aren't there other factors (e.g. velocity of money) at play? I'm struggling to understand why.
This is just a lack of knowledge about the ecosystem. Merchants who are setting up Lightning Network channels or Liquid Network payments on Bitcoin can utilize instant transactions for 1 penny, or as little as one satoshi fee.
I hear this statement repeated often, but it's really not true. Even if lightning network channels ended up pooling to larger liquidity providers for efficiency reasons (less channels of larger size), you still are not ever giving up custody of your Bitcoin by using a lightning channel. And in terms of node operators having "control" because a lot of volume flows through them - they really don't - all they can do is try block you from making transactions through them, but if they do that, many others will pop up to route around them to earn fees.
As crypto matures it becomes less and less decentralized and more like our "legacy" world of finance. It gets to the point where the main benefit you can give is that you are still in control of your bitcoin. My response was that with traditional banks I feel just as in control of my money. Granted I live in the US and that might not be the case everywhere.
With the ability for cryptos to perform hard forks as we have seen with ETH, it seems like technical problems are more or less irrelevant to the worth of a given coin - if there is enough demand then some developers will step up and give the coin the features people want, and then after the hard fork people will have the same amount of coin with much more capability.
This is somewhat ironically a pretty depressing comment, because it implies that the overall community genuinely wants Bitcoin to have the technological characteristics it currently has.
Not the community so much as that Bitcoin has mathematicians and competent cryptographers working on mission critical software. What you see with moving fast and breaking things and numerous forks in other coins is not bright.
Yes the community. What nexuist is claiming is that the community will move to whatever coins support the features they want, because anyone can fork Bitcoin and get the exact same core technology that all of those experts built, along with whatever extra features they want.
So if what nexuist is saying is true, then that means that the majority of the Bitcoin community is happy with the features Bitcoin has, which is depressing because the technology behind it has been generally outclassed by multiple other coins at this point. Bitcoin isn't really leading the pack right now on transaction fees, transaction time, or (especially) privacy.
But the community hasn't wholesale moved to coins like ZCash, Monero, or Mobilecoin, which (if nexuist is right) implies that they're OK with Bitcoin's current privacy guarantees, which are frankly pretty bad.
This does not imply that they are okay with Bitcoin's privacy guarantees because my post also does not imply that people are using Bitcoin as a currency. I think any discussion on crypto has to be conscientious of the fact that quite a large portion of the market cap is filled by speculative investors who are using the coin's price as a financial instrument, rather than as a payment provider.
This is even more obvious with Dogecoin which is accepted at maybe a handful of physical locations around the entire world - far less than Bitcoin, which is itself still pitiful in terms of commerce adoption rate.
The point of my original post was to say, in the event that the coin does start being used as an actual currency, and people do start having complaints about its technical limitations, that does not mean that it will automatically flop back down to worthlessness, because the procedure of hard forking would enable a development community to "fix" the coin and solve whatever problems arise. Bitcoin has been very useful this way as its blockchain was the first to reach an unmanageable size, leading to lots of innovative solutions to increase speed while decreasing disk space. Other coins, obviously wanting to compete with BTC, are incentivized to produce these solutions which can then be adopted by all other coins, improving the entire space at once. The open source nature (requirement, really) of crypto clients also means that nobody can hide their improvements behind an opaque backend - the code has to be visible to everyone, and everyone has to be able to fork it, meaning that everyone gets to use it.
That also describes Bitcoin Cash, except BCH has a still-actively-maintained reference codebase. (And isn't a pump-and-dump coin, which Doge probably is.)
"It's the best performing asset class in the last decade, way outperforming Bitcoin, best performing asset class this year, mass adoption imminent. Insitutionals coming! Why wait, put it on your books! Peaked today at #6 by market cap. Low fees. Can't lose! Have fun staying poor if you don't."
"Can't help but feel a lot of folks in this thread are coping that they didn't get in on Doge sooner."
$1 Doge is a very strong psychological target for the retail fan crowd. Musk keeps tweeting. EasyDNS just added to the momentum pile. They'll probably triple the value of any current holdings by early next year, minimum. This play makes sense in a lot of ways. If you can play technicals (obvious Elliott Wave-end situation likely capping off this weekend for example) you can probably even exit prior to the price exhaustion and buy back at lows.
At 1$, Doge's market cap would be worth 129B$, that would be very interesting to see. At 10$, which a lot of people in their subreddit seem to think is within reach, it would be worth more than 1T$. It's like infinite supply.
Doge inflation is very high by design (because remember it was a joke), at 1$ more than 14 millions $ have to be poured by day just to maintain the price.
Down nearly 40% in the past 24 hours, trade volume is down over 40%, and the $1 fee shows those in the know that it's barely being used on-chain and this was a big pump off washed volumes. 7-10 days and Doge is likely back around 10-13 cents.
> $1 Doge is a very strong psychological target for the retail fan crowd
Yes. Mark my words: the WSB crowd will make the USD/DOGE parity happen.
I've said that before (maybe not here except in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969948 ), and I stick with my prediction: after they found how GME was game, their next logical step was going to be crypto.
The only true question is where DOGE will stabilize: below $2 or above.
This crypto run feels a bit different than the last few, the last couple bubbles didn't have a year of lockdown and political despair behind them. There's a strong sentiment of resentment towards banks, political parties, and institutions in this one. I'm old enough to remember OWS and the "great recession" and even then most people who were not affected could afford to ignore it. This time people who would've otherwise gone about their daily lives without paying much attention to the news have had nothing to do but become dejected iconoclasts.
100% agree, I think a lot of people became disillusioned about the state of things and many have lost quite a bit of faith in their governments and elected officials. That said, I wonder if people will just forget it all once things return back to normal, whatever that normal is.
There is a community, and a zeitgest. A large part attends WSB.
When these redditors will want to keep talking about their new fun project that is making the headlines, either the WSB mods will make exceptions again, or a new sub will be created.
As a payer I have been happy with vendors that use BitPay. I've never operated a shop, but when I looked at BitPay from a merchant POV it did have some benefits. Namely a small fee (something like 1 or 2%, compared to what stripe or similar would charge) and settlement to USD, Euros, or Mexican pesos (IIRC).
Don't use Bitpay, they use some proprietary method that makes it impossible to use from most crypto wallets and I think they just settle into fiat so you can't HODL (could be wrong on the latter point, but not the former).
BTCPayserver.org is an open source stack that any reasonably technical team can use.
Also simplifies accounting a lot. For the same reason you normally get the card processor to receive the local currency, not separate one for every customer's country.
