Hacker News Reader

Comment by tybit | Hacker News Reader

It’s strange to hear that a cryptocurrency designed as a joke has better characteristics as a useful cryptocurrency than than the standard ones.

View on HN

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).

By “hard coded” you mean “a variable” though.

EDIT: wow, sorry Dogecoin fans, I double-checked my notes and you’re right, it’s actually some kind of universal constant that can’t be changed

If the variable doesn’t change, it isn’t variable, is it?

It's constant

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.

Really? Whats the total number of doge that’s going to exist in circulation?

For Bitcoin that’s 21,000,000 - lost coins.

it doesn't have a cap, it's essentially designed to be a penny stock.

10000 new doge are mined every minute

Because that number is fixed, that does mean that inflation slowly tends to zero as time increases.

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.

Adding 10k coins to a supply of 10k: 50% value decrease.

Adding 10k coins to a supply of 10M: 0.1% value decrease.

Etc., meaning inflation is positive, monotonously decreasing, and tending to zero.

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.

This is not a technological issue, but network effects: using SHA256 right now would make DOGE vulnerable to double spend attack.

If it reaches the top 3, it can switch to SHA256. For now, an usual algorithm is the best bet.

It doesn't. It's still a joke.

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.

Solving the issues of decentralization by adding in centralization with off-chain transactions. Love to see it

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.

I don't give up custody of my money by keeping it at a bank.

I'm not sure how that's relevant?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com