Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP


Not actually capped at 100 billion? #23

simondlr opened this Issue · 241 comments

Looking at getBlockValue (and nSubsidy), after the 600 000th block, it will forever be 10k a block. Once it hits 100 billion, it should be set to 0. However, this seems a bit difficult due to the randomness being brought in.

Or rather, that this is intentional? But then the dogecoin thread should mention there is no theoretical cap, but will basically level out at 10 billion (for all intents and purposes)?

Such confuse?


Hm, I think you are right. It seems that many altcoin algorithms assume MAX_MONEY will cap the coin, while a closer inspection of the code seems to reveal that it only caps transaction size and not total coin supply. If this assumption is correct, the way it is will cause something like 5% inflation / year (rather insignificant) after the random blocks have all been mined. More testing is needed.

Fortunately, we won't hit this problem of non-cap for over a year. In perhaps a years time, we should revisit this. My intention would be to stop giving random blocks after block 600000 and ensure the cap at 100 billion, but I would like to see what the community desires at that point. A year can be an eternity in crypto land...


Indeed. It is an eternity in crypto land. MAX_MONEY is a cap at which the client simply refuses to look at a tx due to it obviously being an attempt at a fake.

I suggest fixing this sooner rather than later, though. The longer it waits, the more miners need to update their nodes.


Alright, here is my plan.

If randomization is close to perfect, there will effectively be 1,562,500,000 coins left after block 600,000.

I will change the reward to 1,000 after block 600,000. That would cause the cap to be reached in approximately 3 years (will do 1240000 blocks of this).

After which time, only transaction fees as the reward.

Due to randomization, this will be very close but not exactly 100B, but with a huge runway where I can adjust if needed.


Sounds good to me!


We need to have less than 100B coins, that's too much.


We'll have less for quite awhile!


It will take longer than a year for a new coin to gain the adoption it needs for transaction fees to be a significant motivation for miners. By capping coin rewards after < 1.5 years, you're guaranteeing that most of the miners will move on to other altcoins, significantly reducing the security of the network.

I suggest keeping the reward at 10K indefinitely (as the code is currently), because (a) it will continue to incentivize miners to secure the ledger, (b) it's not significant inflation, just 5% the first year and even less as time goes on, and (c) it's rather a nice way to taper rewarding until transaction fees become the dominant form of miner rewards in the unforeseen future. Who knows when transaction fees will become significant enough for dogecoin? 2 years? 10 years? 20? But with this flat 10K reward, it doesn't really matter, it allows for a very "soft landing".

TLDR: keep the current inflationary scheme, don't cap the production at 100B that'll probably cause the network to die.


dogecoin- please keep the behavior of the code as it is. I say this as someone with considerable holdings. If I was short-sighted and greedy, I would be all like "hell yea I want a bigger slice of the pie", but I believe that the currency will be worth a lot more in the future if it has a gentler inflation rate.

I bought into Dogecoin because the community has such an emphasis on fun and generosity. We need it to be a little looser than the other coins out there if we want to keep the spirit and get anyone other than speculators involved. If we set a hard cap that snaps into play after 3 short years, I'm guessing this will crash the currency.

I'd like my doges to be something that lasts as a healthy currency, instead of having to sit around waiting for the exact right moment to dump them on a sucker in 3 years.

Keep the original Dogecoin!


Interesting perspective, I appreciate the feedback. I've had a lot of feedback recently on the reward system and if something should be changed or not. I'm interested in hearing what more of the community feels.


@jaekwon very good point! I'm siding with keeping it as is then: 10k inflation per block after 600 000 blocks. It should just then be emphasised, and explained properly. ie, due to the short time for coins to be released, a soft landing with small inflation will keep more miners involved.


Good catch. I too think it would probably be best to leave it for now. If in a year there's large enough of a transaction volume to sustain a 100B cap, it won't be too late to change it.

Also @jtremback and @jaekwon have valid points. At any rate, the fixed cap design of crypto currencies is an arbitrary decision as far as dogecoin is concerned. Dogecoin isn't designed to be the ultimate currency, so there's no reason to stick with a fixed cap, especially if it might be harmful to the dogecoin ecosystem. It would be good to keep undemonstrated economic theories out of this, and in this case there's a valid concern that miners leaving would significantly lower the hashrate.

I have my own personal opinion on economics (I'd like to see fancier, dynamic inflation rates in crypto-currencies), plus I hold dogecoin, but I'm trying to think from the most "veil of ignorance" point of view here. We can be pretty sure that 5% per year inflation is fine. I'd say just play it safe. Plus, coincidentally the code is already that way. If there's ever in issue, it can be discussed amongst the community and a decision can be made.


Thanks, Dogecoin! (& contributors)


There are two ways to fix the 'miners are going to leave' problem. The debate here about a 5% inflation rate is interesting, but has to be weighed against potential backlash from who saw and expect the fixed 100B limit from the start. Whats more concerning though, aside from the max limit, is the block reward structure. As it currently stands, it leaves almost no incentive for any miners to exist on the network in about 6-8 months from now.

No miners means no security means dead coin.

50B coins will be out in ~70 days, and then 75B coins in 70 more days, and almost all useful coins mined in 6 months. After that, there are no fees to support miners. 0.001 DOGE is and will always be woefully insufficient.

Perhaps it would be advisable to slow down the block reward after the first halving, and increase fees after the 2nd or 3rd halving. (This would be a soft-fork since we could have all clients updated by then.)

Rather then the next 25Billion coins mined over 70 days, we can keep miners around much longer by extending that period to 140 or 210 days, and also extend the other halvings. The max limit would still be 100B coins, but their release would be slowed down to keep miners around.

Doing something like this would be, in my view, the only way to stop a mass exodus of miners.


@fract4l I assume the fees won't be stuck at 0.001 permanently. I'd expect that as soon as dynamic fees are out for bitcoin/litecoin, they'd be merged into dogecoin. I haven't seen any discussion about this though so maybe I'm wrong.


Here's a thought,
What if we tried knocking out two birds with one stone and increased the block target speed to 2 minutes instead of 1 after some arbitrary point. This would increase the longevity of high rewards and give the coin more time to grow in adoption, and also improve orphan issues and safety, at the expense of slightly longer confirmation times. Then we could revisit this issue after 2+ years and see what people think.

To clairfy, in 2+ years time I think we will have a lot more evidence if minor inflation (at most 2.5% a year), PoS concepts, or deflationary coins are more likely to maintain interest, and we can make a decision from that point without causing much issue, with plenty of community input.

There's anecdotal evidence to that inflationary currency can still maintain value (peercoin, primecoin) and deflationary currency can lose most of its mining (extremecoin, infinitecoin), but I think more evidence would be needed at a further date.

@fract4l @jaekwon are there issues with this approach?


:+1: increase the block target speed


People put money into coins to invest, if the coin is going to devalue due to inflation why would one put money into the coin? Value is heavily relied upon market cap and investability. 100 billion coins is already A LOT, even getting Dogecoin up to $.01(one cent) would be a feat, considering 100Billion*.01=1Billion and Bitcoins current market cap is 8billion. I propose we cap it at 100 Billion and either increase fees to incentivise mining, or we can change the time frame of 1.5 yrs total 100B being mined to a 5-20yr time frame.


@dogecoin Sounds good to me, too!


@dogecoin I think it would probably be best to leave it for now and revisit this after 2+ years. So about 100B coins will be mined in first year and about 5B coins will be mine in second year. Increasing block target time to 2 minutes doesn't solve anything but cause protocol instability and bad reputation. In the world of decentralized currencies, reputation is the most important


At least the transaction fees have been updated (which makes it more feasible for miners in the future, and the removal of dust spam).

I'm siding with @jaekwon here, as this is the path the least resistance. Dogecoin IS a fun currency. Providing a soft landing for miners with a 10k a block inflation is okay. Nodes and miners won't have to update their software. It will essentially be about 100 billion in the end (with ever decreasing inflation over the years).

Instead of requiring people to update, it's just a short knock in terms of expectation (there's not a theoretical cap).


Guys, I totally disagree with the direction things seem to be going here.. The understanding since the very beginning of dogecoin has been that it will be capped at 100 billion. Most people on reddit have been basing their valuation of dogecoin on this. If there is anything they know, its that dogecoin has a limit of 100 billion. It would be a huge mistake to change this and undermine the trust in dogecoin and instead of capping it create 5 billion new dogecoins a year indefinitely.

Extend the life of the currency by extending the length of time it takes to get to 100 billion, but do not change the 100 billion amount.


1. It's a trade off between network security and limited supply. 5B more coins per year causes a little inflation but it helps protecting the network. When network is protected, people will trust more => value increased
2. About 5% inflation seams signification in long term but it's nothing in short and medium term. Why care about 5% inflation when the value of coins can increase/decrease 50% per day and your investment can return 1000% or more per year?


@dogecoin sorry for the delay, I was away over the holidays.

As I suspected, talk of the coin limit going higher then 100B becomes a political debate... In the meantime, I think your suggestion of increasing the block target to 2 minutes is the best solution for keeping miners around and extending the life of the coin. It keeps the block schedule the same, and ALSO fixes the orphan problem that a lot of pools were complaining about. I think politically this would be the path of least resistance. 1) The value has been dropping, so people would welcome a slower inflation. 2) Miners would be happy with less orphans. 3) It gives devs and everyone more time to address the > 100B inflation issue.

I would ACK the change to 2 minute blocks after the first halving.


@fract4l I think it's a very bad signal if we change the protocol because the price is dropping fast.. As a former forex trader, I see patient is the key to winning. After looking at other success altcoins, I believe the price of dogecoin will increase at least 10 times after the first or second halving.


Increasing block target to 2 minutes after the first reward halving makes sense - not to protect prices but to leave more mining income for later. But the change needs to gain acceptance, and the fact that it could protect current prices helps with that.

If no other changes will be made, then the monetary inflation after 100 billion would be 2.6 billion doge a year. The global rate of economic growth is likely to be at least 2.6%, so if we assume the dogeconomy keeps growing at at least that rate, the coin does not lose value, and in fact should only gain in value in terms of fiat money. Politicians and central bankers keep monetary inflation well above the rate of economic growth to prevent price deflation. Sadly not many people in the crypto communities understand these matters.


I agree with @nguoinhaque that it looks pretty bad if we start changing things up. It's going to halve soon anyway, and it's a weird experimental coin that was never meant to grow this popular. I say leave well enough alone.


@nguoinhaque If we dont change the block target time we run the risk of having a dead coin at some point, if we dont change the inflation rate we run the risk of having everyone believing we lied to them because we have said over and over again from the very beginning, and on multiple different official websites, that the limit for DOGE is 100 billion coins. Adding inflation to a coin that people previous believed would be a deflationary coin is a big deal.


@dakrin I didn't say we should never change the protocol but I said we shouldn't hurry, shouldn't panic. The protocol is the core of the network, don't change it whenever we want because it's dangerous (recent chain splitting is an example) and causes bad reputation. Just wait about 2 years, we will have much more time and data to analyze the situation. I believe the patience will finally lead us to success.


I too don't like the idea of changing the protocol. It is the back-bone to how the currency works. How do you think people would feel if Bitcoin decided to change their target block time to 5 mins and remove the hard cap of 21 million coins?

I think this issue should be resolved quickly (and add the 100B limit) or begin to communicate the the 100B cap is not in place and there will be no limit to the number of DOGE.

The way I see it, we're going to loose activity if 100B isn't the hard limit, and we're going to loose the trust of our community if this 'change' isn't properly communicated. The (right) thing to do would be add the 100B limit and have this debate (publicly) after.


@nguoinhaque @aso118 @jtremback

I'm not sure you guys are familiar with the code or how the blockchain works. A change to 2 minute blocks or 1.5 minute blocks does not change the amount of DOGE. It simply extends the lifetime of the coin. There will still be 100B DOGE.

But more importantly, it will significantly reduce the amount of orphaned blocks. Dogecoin currently has the most amount of orphan blocks out of any of the top 30 alt-coins. This is a problem and needs to be fixed. The way to fix this is to extend the block target.

It is similar to the other problem with dust. People said 'dont change the protocol' when I mentioned that the fees were too low and would lead to attacks of spamming the blockchain. Look what happened. If you people are worried about the price and long term viability of DOGE, you should understand what is going to happen 6 months from now.

If the block reward isn't slowed down, all useful DOGE will be mined within 6 months. The fees afterwards will not be enough to incentivize miners. The hashrate will drop drastically. Perhaps down to 25 or 30 difficulty. This means DOGE will be vulnerable to a 51% attack by large mining pools or even a single entity with a large mining farm.

(For the record to devs, anyone who thinks that changing the block target interval changes the number of coins that will be released probably doesn't understand the code and I would take their opinion with a grain of salt.)


1. As I understand, fee changing is a soft change, not a hard change (have risk of chain splitting) like changing block target interval.
2. We don't need to care about high orphan block rate because all miners are still fair. Nothing change if we reduce orphan rate, miners still choose the most profitable altcoins to mine base on the valid block rate.
3. 51% attack is a risk when reward drop too fast. But I believe this risk is much lower than making a hard change. Reason: The cost of 51% attack is much much higher than the reward of a block, so 51% attack is not economic efficiency. If the price of coin is high, the cost will too high for a real attack. If the price of coin is too low, that means the coin is dying, why need to attack it?


@fract4l About your question about how I familiar with the code or how blockchain work. I have to admit I don't have time/too lazy to read the code but I already read satoshi's paper on


I also think increasing block target to 2 min will be best solution for now. I agree patient is important, on the other hand making change like that is better done sooner than later. More adoption dogecoin has, it will require more and more people to upgrade wallets and etc. I think its better to do it when adoption is quite low, and most of people is already familiar with wallet upgrades after last fork.


@zewelor But I don't see any persuadable reason to increase block target to 2 minute. But have three main reasons we shouldn't do it:
1. Bad reputation when we change the protocol
2. Risk to have another chain splitting. Very dangerous, it can totally destroy the coin
3. Reduce network scaling by a factor of 2. Small block target interval is very important factor if we want dogecoin expand rapidly at the beginning before some ideas to solve the network scaling problem like dynamic block size mature.


I agree with your points also. There are important things to consider.

  1. Your are absolutely right about this. It might bring bad reputation, if people won't fully understand reasons behind this. If they will see protocol changes they can feel cheated. Thats 100% right. On the other hand, if they see changes that would help coin in longer term, and assuming they want that coin to success in longer term, they might be happy about such change. Some people before raised valid point about miners abandoning coin when almost all coins will be mined. We might easly end up with dead coin, and I think most of us don't want it. This discussion we have here proves there are some people that seems some bigger picture for dogecoin, its future, and we all want what is the best for dogecoin. If we wouldn't care about it, then there will be no such discussion at all. Look at 99% of altcoins, they are just cheap forks, few changes, and codebase dead after it. Now we are trying to be better than other cheap altcoins, and make something better. I totally agree some people can feel "cheated", but when they understand reasoning behind it, they can see it as improvement, which we are trying to do.
  2. Totally agree, recent fork caused some damage. We can minimize it giving like 1 week heads up about proposed changes, write to every pool owner before to prepare them for such changes, and etc. Recent fork just happend, now we can be prepared for it.
  3. I think we are still in the beginning and we are starting discussion for problems like that.

Thats what I think, I might be totally wrong :)


According to Zewelor idea, i think it's the best way to make doge more valuable coin. If not we can meet the situation as dog will drop and coz of that will be forgoten by miners. Anyway if u would double time of block the only bad repercusion of that can be a bad way of understanding it by people who earn most from it - miners. It would hit them and they could make a bad opinion about doge development but there is very simply way to make it more acceptable: Make a good topic contains all positive and negative aspects of increasing block time on bttalk/reddit/etc and then ask in pool people mind. I think most of them will vote for changing it and it won't be a suprise for community.


@fract4l I think you are exactly right. Lets change the block target time to 2 minutes, and lets implement the correct 100 billion limit fix. We should do this at the same time, or before we hit the 100k block. This is not that far away. How do we get consensus to do this?


@dakrin why? I don't think it is right to cap it at 100B, inflation is good for a currency! Bitcoiners will get into a lot of trouble once they mined everything! Once Bitcoin hits the 21 Million coins people will be much less motivated to spend their Bitcoins because they can be sure, that there Bitcoins will tomorrow have more value. So they keep it instead of spending it. A currency nobody is willing to spend is a dead currency in my opionion!

Apart from that, I joined the Dogecoins Community like two weeks after release so I do not know if the explanation of the reward system was always like this, but it is like this since I joined:

Block 1-100,000: 0-1,000,000 DogeCoin Reward
Block 100,001 — 200,000: 0-500,000 DogeCoin Reward
Block 200,001 — 300,000: 0-250,000 DogeCoin Reward
Block 300,001 — 400,000: 0-125,000 DogeCoin Reward
Block 400,001 — 500,000: 0-62,500 DogeCoin Reward
Block 500,001 - 600,000: 0-31,250 DogeCoin Reward

Block 600,000+: 10,000 DogeCoin Reward<<<

If somebody doesn't get the reward system and makes his wrong interpretations, it is his problem!


I also doesn't think that setting hard 100 bln cap is good to do. In current reward system we will have all coins mined too fast. When all coins will be mined miners wont mine just to reward from fees, because they are too small. It just won't work. To have 100 bln max we would need to redo whole reward system to get more years of mining with higher rewards. In 3 months we will have 75% coins mined, and 90% in 5-6 months ? Maybe even more. Reward will be very small at that time, and if price wont go up more than 100x miners will simple leave dogecoin mining and coin will be dead. I'm suprised there is much development in this awesome community. Everyone is building new great services and sites, but doesn't seem to care at all about topic we are discussing. If we wont change something, all of that hard work will be useless. Or maybe I'm missing something ?


Let's summarize pros/cons
EDITED: The Idea is to increase block time from 1 minute, to 2 minutes, after block 75000 (or after block 125000),
and to release this code change ASAP (in 3 days) but it will take effect weeks later so everyone can upgrade.

  • + more people have chance to mine and get reasonable amount of Doge so they consider it fair share
  • + more time to grow economy so there is a life after rewards drop
  • + more time to tweak minfees, and convince people to pay them, before it is unavoidable to avoid spam and 51%
  • + for longer amount of time people will mine Doge and promote it therefore
  • + the change will become active 2 weeks after CODE is released and advertised heavily, to reduce chance of someone not updating and getting chainsplit
  • + all pools and other responsible entities will easily manage to update in time
  • + EDITED: also less orphaned blocks, so better for the miners !
  • - some users might not update, though they will be just getting perhaps strange results or no new transactions, they should not lose any value
  • - some people might be unhappy with any change of the rules even if it's for the profit of Dogecoin project

I would opt for Yes - let's do it

EDITED: the code change needs to be published fast, but when it will activate, imo there are 2 good options:

  • we are now at block ~50000
  • either activate increased block-time at block 75000:
  • * so 3 days from now code is published
  • * in 2 weeks: reward becomes /2 smaller since the time increase
  • * in 4 weeks: reward becomes /4 smaller since also the normal halving of block-reward at block 100000
  • or instead activate increased block-time at block 125000:
  • * so 3 days from now code is published
  • * in 4 weeks: reward becomes /2 smaller since the normal halving of block-reward at block 100000
  • * in 6 weeks: reward becomes /4 smaller since also the time increase

I would opt for the 75000. I would NOT do it at block 100000 because sudden instant /4 drop could be too much of motivation for miners to change to other coin.


Let's do exactly what?


@m106 updated my post


The way dogecoin was announced was the source for all the confusion about the 100 billion cap: - In there it says "Max Coins: 100,000,000,000 DOGE" but it also clearly says "Block 600,000+: 10,000 DogeCoin Reward". Many people apparently assumed the former was exactly correct, while some people thought (or read the actual code to know) that it's the latter. Whether the hard cap is removed or not, some people will consider themselves having been misled, and frankly, they are right.

I think the least disruptive way to solve the cap confusion would be to make a statement that the max 100 billion was only an approximation for the foreseeable future, not an actual hard limit. This wouldn't require a change in the code, so it's actually the more conservative approach. I still support doubling the block time though, which is needed for network health in the near future, and also would make the block 600,000+ (monetary, not price) inflation rate 2.6% at most instead of 5.2%, which would be a bit too large perhaps.


@miikao But with increased block time, inflation rate should be 2.6% ? 1/2 from 5.2 if there will be 2 times less blocks ? So it just should also solve that inflation rate ?


@zewelor That's exactly what I was trying to say (among other things), maybe I wasn't being clear enough though.


I definitely think the doges should keep flowing. If we put a hard cap on the number of doges, soon only aristocats will be able to afford them.


@orezpraw that would make current community very rich and able to fund new cool projects, in Doge and outside, eventually the money would be spread around.

Also, becoming most successful "too popular" strong currency, is probably least of current problems of Đ.


I am also supporting the idea of doubling the block time! But it is really really important if we do so, to communicate it properly to the community few days or even weeks in advance!


Hello, I hold a significant amount of DOGE and would like to go on the record supporting the current code as written: after 600,000 blocks there is a fixed 10,000 block reward. A 5% increase to the money supply in the first year, which falls every year thereafter is completely reasonable in my view.

A small subsidy such as this is crucial in maintaining the security of the network. The biggest threat to DOGE moving forward is a hard landing at 100B coins. If a hard landing were to occur, virtually all mining activity would cease and the network would be vulnerable to 51% attack. Trust me, there are plenty of DOGE haters that would love to attack the coin if it ever became vulnerable. In addition, the 10k block reward will allow us to keep transaction fees low - it's a win-win.

I would also like to say that I am strongly opposed to the idea of increasing the block time to 2 minutes. A 60 second block time is one of the biggest advantages DOGE has over Bitcoin (10 minutes) and Litecoin (2.5 minutes). The shorter transaction time has huge real-world implications and should be left as is.


@TheRealSimcom no, the small inflation just changes the problem a bit... after 5 month we have maybe 85% instead 90% mined or something... still it's "almost all coins were mined in first months, why should I join now".

UNLESS you want a rapid inflation, changing total amount of coins in next 4 years say by x2... but in such a case value would fall to compensate, and as both miner and especially as person INVESTING in doge (buying it, holding it, etc) I would fell cheated, plus this is bigger violation of initial "agreement" on rules of Doge coin, it would be unprecedented to make such a large change like changing value of coin...
It makes coin printable "like FED does", which is opposite of what most investors love in bitcoin-alt coins!

Longer block changes this time from 5 month to ~10 month. In this time we must find enough interest so that miners will keep mining despite diminishing profit - and will be switching to txfee as main source of income.

If we have just few months to do it, then if we can't do it very rapidly, faster then Bitcoin, then we will fail and project will likely be over, when miners will leave then as you said "haters" will easily destroy network with 51%.


Ok, it looks like the majority of these posts are supporting the 2 minute block time target - i think thats great. I still support adding the 100 billion cap, but i can see arguments for not adding it. I think the most important thing is to implement the block target time fix asap. I also agree 75000 is the right place to add it.


I disagree that 75000 is the right place to add it. I want a much longer runway than what we had last time, which lead to a fork and 66% of the network adopting. I will heavily consider 125000 however.

I would also keep the "10k indefinitely" code in, for now. We can revisit that in ~2 years. There's no hurry whatsoever for that decision, we want to make the best decision with the most examples of successful coins and failed coins.


@dogecoin If you are afraid of 51% attack and still want to make a hard fork, I'd recommend you still keep 1 minute block target and reduce reward 1% per week (about 40% per year) like Wordcoin ( In fact, I prefer 30 seconds block target for fast confirmation and scalability. Let's do some calculation:

Suppose we have a hard fork at block 200,000 and still keep 1 minute block target. That means the remaining coins are 25B, call x is the initial reward per block after the fork. Number of coins mined after first week is: 14407x. Total coins will be: 14407x / (1-0.99) = 25,000,000,000 <=> x = about 24800 (coins/block). If we reduce the target to 30 seconds, the initial reward should be 12400 (coins/block)


@dogecoin Anyway, I'm neutral about 100B hard limit but I strongly oppose the idea increasing block time target to 2 minute. I believe it will cause psychological disaster because the confirmation time suddenly doubles and scalability down about a half (just a notice: number of transactions per day on dogecoin network is currently HIGHER than bitcoin network).


@dogecoin I just skim the files main.h and main.cpp. It seems that dogecoin have been forked from old version of litecoin/bitcoin so the hard limit of block is still 500 KB (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2) not 1 MB like bitcoin. I think you should focus on analyzing scalability problem now before making any change


I just found a site have an interactive graph so you can easily compare number transactions between dogecoin and bitcoin network. The number transactions in dogecoin network is currently consistent higher than bitcoin and it tripled the bitcoin network at the day 20-Dec-2013. The site:


@R.Freeman on the other hand, if Dogecoin does move successfully to primarily fee-supported mining in a relatively short period, that could be a reason for using it rather than another coin that might not. Dogecoin can't win by doing the "safe" thing.


@AnomalyUK Dogecoin only produce 10x as many as block as bitcoin now, not 60x. If we increase block time to 2 minute, it reduce to 5x. If the hard limit of block is 500 KB, that means it only handle 2.5x number of transactions that bitcoin network can handle. As I said in above comment, on the day 20-Dec-2013 the number of transactions on dogecoin network triple bitcoin. If we consider the fact that dogecoin is still in very early stage, it is very bad signal we need notice immediately.

Another thing: I heard that bitcoin had a serious chain splitting when it switch from 500 KB hard limit to 1MB. So we need to analyze the situation carefully before making the switch.


I disagree that anything needs to be done immediately with regards to making the block limit larger. I strongly disagree with a 30 second blocktime. I have considered slowly reducing the rewards as well, and that could be a good solution, but it seems like making the block time target slower is more beneficial overall.


I agree that reducing the block time has several advantages, but I'm not certain that doubling that time is totally necessary. A 90 second block time pushes block 812500 out nearly a year depending on the timing. In any case no matter how the block much the block time increases I think it's important to position it in between one of the reward change thresholds. Around block 150000 would be my suggestion. The response to an increase in block time which takes place at the same time as a reward reduction makes me a bit nervous. We'd be effectively reducing the incentive to mine by as much as 75% in an instant.


I agree with @somegeekintn in that mid block is better. When I said before 125000 I should have said 150000.

I'm becoming less and less convinced the more that I think about it that it is a good idea at all to change it though. Right now multipools are making all scryptcoins unstable except Litecoin (and even are affecting litecoin to an extent), as they have 20+ GHs of hash power, which is more (and at times much much more) than any single coin not named litecoin. So it seems like 'making a scrypt coin safe' via hashpower is a bit of a farce.

It's also been a little more than a month, and a ridiculous amount of new coins have come out, and the landscape has changed dramatically. It's difficult for me to believe any projections for the future in this current environment. If we slow it down too much too quickly, and it becomes unprofitable and the price does not go up (the part no one can predict or control), we'll lose a lot of hashpower from profit hoppers and the coin will be in the same state as every other scrypt coin not named litecoin, except this time people can point to 'the devs' for messing around with the generic formula.

Perhaps that can of worms needs no opening.


@dogecoin I don't understand what you mean here. Slow down the coins being mined doesn't mean increasing block time target. Increasing block time target is only one of options to do that and I think it's a bad option. There are many many other options we need to consider carefully


@dogecoin Sorry, I think I see your point now. I have some problems even with my mother language, hehe.


@dogecoin Well if some miners will go away, diff will decrease and coin will be profitable to mine again. So they will came back. If you are worried about the price, price will have much easier to go up when we will have less coins generated each day. Less money flowing into the market will be needed to maintain the same price level. And as the time goes adoption and awareness of the dogecoin increases, that will also help. Its always the price that attracts more people / miners / adoption. Last price move up, resulted in new all time high diff 493,8. If not changing block time we could redesign rewards system, but I don't have idea for it, and I think increasing block time would be better option. Maybe lets increase it to 1.5 min not 2 ? To sum up, in my opinion we are just generating coins too fast, and adoption of the coin doesn't move that fast. If we decrease new coins generation we will have bigger chance for success.


@dogecoin i suggest you read @rfree and @fract4l 's comments above if you havent already, i thought they had some pretty good thoughts on why we should double the block time which extends the life of the coin. I'm not sure why increasing the block time would reduce incentive to mine. The value of the coin is what drives incentive for miners, which is based on supply/demand. Increasing block time just reduces the supply a bit. Free market economy should fix the rest.

Like Zewelor says above, we are generating our coins too fast and we need to reduce it. I feel we need to make a decision quickly because we can't "go back in time" and fix it.


Has anyone done any sketches on transactions to block size? How much transactions per block (on average) do we need until we start running into scalability problems? If we increase the block time to 2 minutes this cap will be hit quicker, but is it a problem? Anyone?


@simondlr Let's crunch the numbers:
First, you can look at: Yesterday, there are 58550 transactions on bitcoin network
Then look at: Yesterday, block chain size increased from 13038 MB to 13065 MB, that means an increasing 27 MB
So a typical transaction on bitcoin network cost about 27,000,000 / 58550 = 461 bytes. The cost on dogecoin network is lower but this number is better predictor because dogecoin is new and its blockchain haven't been fragmented like bitcoin.
If hard limit of block size is 500 KB, so theoretically maximum number transactions per block is: 500,000 / 461 = 1084. The real maximum number is lower.
One day have average 1440 block, so there are theoretically maximum 1440 * 1084 = 1560960. Suppose the real maximum is very near the theoretically maximum, we have maximum 1.5 million transactions dogecoin network can handle per day.
If block time target increase to 2 minutes, the maximum number is 750,000. On the day 20-Dec-2013, there about 200,000 transactions on dogecoin network. So if we increase block time target to 2 minutes, we will hit the cap when the network grow about 3.5 times. It is very possible within several months because dogecoin appeared only 6 weeks ago.


There was a comment on this thread earlier (that seems to have been deleted) that got me thinking about this problem again.

I think we can all agree that the current rate at which the block reward is decreasing is not in the best interest of the coin, but how to go about addressing this without damaging the coin's stability, utility. security, etc? I spent a lot of time playing around with a spreadsheet this morning and eventually reached the conclusion that we'll likely need to both adjust the block time and the rate at which the block value is reduced. Also, while I had initially thought that the 100,000,000,000 coin limit was a good thing I've come around to thinking that it's probably okay to build in a tiny bit of inflation, as the dogecoin foundation states: "The point of any currency is to exchange it for goods and services so making a pile and hiding it in a secret lair is no good to anyone". Built-in inflation helps promote these exchanges. So, I offer the following proposal which would proceed in 3 stages:

Stage 1 (blocks 0 - 149,999): well that's actually where we're at right now
State 2 (blocks 150,000 - 199,999): block time increased to 90 seconds
Stage 3 (blocks 200,000+): New block value calculation

I mentioned the idea for stage 2 in an earlier post so I won't get into that. For the last stage, before block 200,000 rolled around the following GetBlockValue would be in place:

Basically what would happen is that the block reward would actually decrease by 59.6% at block 200,000. In exchange for this more substantial reduction, the number of blocks between reward decreases would be doubled. After that each reduction would be slightly less than the last with the random portion of the reward having less and less significance with each reduction until (at block 9,200,000) the random portion will have completely right shifted itself out of existence.

You'll notice there are two variants to the GetBlockValue. One would always add 1000 doge to the value and the other would insure that the block reward was at least 1000 doge. That is, if the random portion and the fees totaled less than 1000 then the value would be set to 1000.

In exchange for these two disruptions, dogecoin's block value would settle into a gentle decline once every 208.3 days as opposed to the current rate of once every 69.4 days. It would end up working out like this:

through / reward / totalcoins
02/14/14 / 500,000 / 50,000,000,000
05/11/14 / 250,000 / 75,000,000,000
12/05/14 / 101,000 / 95,200,000,000
07/01/15 / 51,000 / 105,400,000,000
01/26/16 / 26,000 / 110,600,000,000
08/21/16 / 13,500 / 113,300,000,000
03/17/17 / 7,250 / 114,750,000,000
10/12/17 / 4,125 / 115,575,000,000
05/08/17 / 2,562.5 / 116,087,500,000
10/12/17 / 1781.25 / 116,443,750,000

and so on until the random portion of the block reward is completely eliminated in sometime in 2040. At that point there will have been ~124,000,000,000 coins mined and the reward will be fixed at 1000. At 1000 coins per block the total supply will grow by 350,400,000 coins/year or about 0.66% of the total at that point in time.

Lastly, for better or worse, dogecoin is most often exchanged for BTC and its value is expressed in those units. About 47 satoshis at the moment. I deliberately tried to keep the inflation somewhat in check because I think we may run into trouble if the value falls below 20 satoshis. At 20 satoshis increase / decrease of 1 unit translates to a valuation change of 5%! Also you have to wonder at what point value that exchanges would consider removing DOGE/BTC pairs and maybe force trading in LTC, etc.

This transition period is not going to be fun, but I think in the end we'll have a solid foundation on which to build.


This is very good discussion.

Just for reference, here is the current trajectory --

As originally intended

through / reward / totalcoins
2/14/14 / 500,000 / 50,000,000,000
5/2/2014 / 250,000 / 75,000,000,000
7/18/2014 / 125,000 / 87,500,000,000
10/3/2014 / 62,500 / 93,750,000,000
12/19/2014 / 31,250 / 96,875,000,000
3/6/2015 / 10,000 / 100,000,000,000 after 312500 additional blocks (217 days)
10/9/2015 / Fees only

Leaving it as is

through / reward / totalcoins
2/14/14 / 500,000 / 50,000,000,000
5/2/2014 / 250,000 / 75,000,000,000
7/18/2014 / 125,000 / 87,500,000,000
10/3/2014 / 62,500 / 93,750,000,000
12/19/2014 / 31,250 / 96,875,000,000
3/6/2015 / 10,000 / 100,000,000,000 after 312500 additional blocks (217 days)
10/9/2015 / 10,000 / (100 billion more every 19 years)

Another path of very little resistance is to cap at 200 billion 19 years from now, or cap at 200 billion and halve at 9.5 years from now, 19 years from now, 28.5 years from now, etc.

I'm just wondering why there is certainty that the rewards need to be slowed down? If supply and demand -- supply is controlled algorithmically, yes, but demand is based on significant external factors beyond any algorithm, most of all being the collective human psyche, which I haven't found to be particularly predictable...


@dogecoin I think the rewards system of peercoin is worth to consider after block 600,000. It said that the reward will down a half when difficulty up 16x. So the reward tends to decrease a half after about 6 years because exponential growth of computing technology. If dogecoin growth very fast and it mature sooner, the difficulty will also growth very fast and the reward will halve sooner. That means dogecoin can transform to fee-based reward when it mature without any hard-coded in the protocol . That seems good.


@dogecoin We can also consider averaged total fees per block (let's call it: ATFPB) as another factor in the reward system (beside another factor like difficulty I mentioned in above comment) because more fees mean the network more matured. For example: when ATFPB*difficulty up 32x, the reward will down a half. Another factor could be averaged number of transactions per day.


@dogecoin Perhaps I misread the tenor of some of the earlier remarks. It seemed to me a foregone conclusion that a more gentle reduction in rewards was desired. My gut tells me it would be better to come in for a softer landing, but I'm certainly no economist.

Granted I'm relatively new to the whole crypto-currency thing, only having started taking a serious look at all this stuff around the beginning of November but, as far as I know, no other coin has had its block reward halved 5 times in a single calendar year. I'm not sure a coin has had this happen more than once in a calendar year to be honest. If we hold to the original schedule, the block reward will have been reduced by 98% by the end of the year. Dogecoin has a pretty rabid following (heh) that will continue to mine no matter what, but I feel a majority look to mining as a source of real income. Unless the price increases by 5000% to compensate (given the craziness of the last few hours perhaps that's not entirely out of the question!), it's inevitable miners will turn elsewhere. A loss of miners equals a loss of security and, perhaps more importantly at this stage, mindshare. This in turn could lead to a loss of demand and the beginnings of a downward spiral.

But, like I said I'm not an economist, and even if I were I don't think an accurate prediction could be made when it comes to trying to predict where any crypto-currency is headed. I'm just tossing out one possibility. Although... I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that a price increase of 5000% (relative to BTC) by the end of the year seems pretty ambitious. That would put Dogecoin solidly in the #2 spot as far as market cap goes at more than 4 times Litecoin's current market cap.

Actually, from a purely experimental point of view, I kind of want to see what happens with these rapid block reward reductions. In fact it was one of the things that initially piqued my interest in dogecoin, as a spectator anyway. Unless there is a change, we get to see what might happen over bitcoin's lifecycle accelerated 21 times. (Now that there is big business in BTC mining I'm very interested to see what happens to these professional miners when their revenue is cut in half overnight. Something tells me it ain't going to be pretty, but that's a whole other discussion). But now that I actually control a tiny sliver of Dogecoin* I'd kind of rather let someone else blaze that trail :)

Now as to whether block rewards should continue indefinitely. I think this is actually the more important question and we should make an effort to reach a determination as soon as practical. I don't personally have a problem with a continued block reward (obviously since that's what my proposal called for), but I made every effort to stick as close as possible to the original 100,000,000,000 coin objective. Also my aim with the final inflation amount was to stay somewhat below the historical inflation rate of the USD. Over the last 30 years or so this has been around 2-3% so my proposal called for an initial inflation rate (once the random portion went away) of 0.66% which would decrease very slowly thereafter. It feels like this would give it a good shot of holding it's value relative to the dollar but add just enough inflation to sort of lubricate the gears of commerce. If we instead settle at a block reward of 10,000 coins per block that works out to an initial inflation rate of >5% annually which would slowly decline 2.6% after we hit 200,000,000,000 coins, and so on. This means that once everything settles down in a few years (assuming historical inflation rates continue) you can be almost guaranteed that the value of dogecoin decreases relative to the USD for the first 20-30 years.

But all that is not the reason I think a decision needs to be made quickly. As far the general public knows, unless they've been following this discussion, there will only ever be 100,000,000,000 coins produced. There are at least 3 links from the official website that state this definitively. While dogecoin may have started as this fun jokey thing, there are some very serious quantities of real money being thrown at this thing now. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars are being invested in this currency by individuals with the belief that the number of coins is capped. If a significant change is made to the original statement of 100,000,000,000 coins I have to wonder what sort of reaction that generates. Given the amount of real money involved it wouldn't come as a huge shock to see lawyers get involved. I'm not a legal expert either so I can't say, but if I were someone that invested thousands of dollars in something only to see the rules changed in a way I believe affected me negatively I can see getting pretty upset about that. Perhaps upset enough to look for a way to extract a pound of flesh from someone, somewhere.

So, those are my long and rambling thoughts. Do with them what you will.

*Full disclosure: At this point I only control about 100,000 dogecoin, sadly (about $60 woo). I got in too late (story of my life) so I probably don't stand to gain or lose much regardless of the outcome. My initial interest was originally strictly mercenary until the community won me over and I developed an affection for dogecoin. And that point I began holding whatever amounts my little R270X can crank out each day. I think it's a great story and I hope it has a happy ending.


Granted I'm relatively new to the whole crypto-currency thing, only having started taking a serious look at all this stuff around the beginning of November but, as far as I know, no other coin has had its block reward halved 5 times in a single calendar year.

This isn't true at all. I'll name 5 off the top of my head that have had an even steeper decline:

LotteryTickets (where the algorithm came from in the first place)

A loss of miners equals a loss of security and, perhaps more importantly at this stage, mindshare. This in turn could lead to a loss of demand and the beginnings of a downward spiral.

Our hashrate has swung from 50 GH/s to 14 GH/s back to 50 GH/s in this initial timeframe. That's without any change to the coin creation rate, and entirely dependent on trading value, which "the devs" have no control over.

I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that a price increase of 5000% (relative to BTC) by the end of the year seems pretty ambitious.

I think you are messing up cause and effect, plus your numbers are wrong. Dogecoin doesn't have a goal of going up 5000% relative to BTC in a year. Dogecoin is a crypto coin with an algorithm and traders do what they want. If traders buy dogecoin up to 1670% (the correct number), then it'll probably maintain hashrate as the most profitable coin to mine. I wouldn't call this stable anyway, considering as stated earlier, 36 GH/s are a swing from those mining the most profitable coin.

If a significant change is made to the original statement of 100,000,000,000 coins I have to wonder what sort of reaction that generates. Given the amount of real money involved it wouldn't come as a huge shock to see lawyers get involved. I'm not a legal expert either so I can't say, but if I were someone that invested thousands of dollars in something only to see the rules changed in a way I believe affected me negatively I can see getting pretty upset about that. Perhaps upset enough to look for a way to extract a pound of flesh from someone, somewhere.

Yikes. Now you've gone to crazyville.

I think we have enough runway in the 8 months of 10k rewards to make a more reasonable decision about this with more of the community included, rather than to make a gut reaction due to a ridiculous fear that people are going to sue because they lost money gambling on the zero sum game of cryptocurrency trading.

Dogecoin has 12x more hash rate now than all the scrypt coins not named litecoin. Are all of them "dead"?


Yikes. Now you've gone to crazyville

LOL. Maybe so. Maybe so. As I stated I'm new to all of this and my expertise is pretty much limited to writing software. So I'll leave it at that and get back to writing.


I agree a lot with somegeekintn.
It can never be good for investors when things are uncertain. I owe a lot of doge, like the coin, but hate this particular issue.
Both situations ( 100 bil cap and on the other side keep blocks at 10k) have pro's and contra's. My idea is to seek the answer somewhere in the middle. We want some kind of cap. But we also like to secure the network.
How about the following idea.

After 600k blocks we go to 10.000 per block until we reach the
From that point we go for 5000 per block for a year.
And after every year we halve the blog reward.
So after reaching, the first year will have 2,6% inflation, which will halve every year.
Finally, when I calculate right we will end up around doge coins.

Like I said, I really think this issue has to be solved urgently, BUT in a way that nobody cabn really disagree. What looks important to me is to make just a little change, so all doge-lovers can never be really negativ about the idea.

Interested to know how you guys think about this idea


I don't think "I really think this issue has to be solved urgently, BUT in a way that nobody can really disagree." is possible. I don't think this change needs to be solved urgently.

Why would people rather a gut reaction change be made without solid data than a rational one based on evidence and experience?

What if I made some blanket statements (this is not the actual plan, these are just examples):
1) There will be some kind of change. There will not be infinite inflation.
2) With the change, the total number of dogecoins will not exceed 200 billion (and if it sets that high, that will be spread about over the course of more than one decade)
3) Most likely, we'll be looking at some kind of minor inflation that tapers down over the course of 20+ years, unless it makes more sense to just use transaction fees as block rewards.

Would that help assuage uncertainty in people?


Thanks dogecoin for the quick reaction.

I like your first point.
According point 2, I am glad it will not exceed But I think, is way too much regarding the initial announcement of Doubling to 200 s not really a small/smooth change imo.
I like point 3.

But don't forget; investors always like clarity ( we know that from the stockmarket).


I agree -- I wanted to set a high bar "worst case scenario for people worried about inflation." It could be 200 billion if over the next 100 years, for example. If people are worried about that, they have to remember that we'll all be dead by then.

I would hope investors would want decision makers to make the best and most educated decision for something to succeed, and not to make rash and fear based decisions.


200 bil. in 100 years sounds good. Just, when reaching the 100 bil cap, 5000 per block until 150 bil is reached, then halve and then halve again by 175 bil. That will do the job and takes enough time and network will be secured. In this situations I would have no problem at all and most ( almost all) investors might agree.


@dogecoin Whatever you do, you should probably fix the announcement thread in bitcointalk and the info on to say that the 10,000 doge block reward won't continue forever and that the limit might be as much as 200 billion. Given what you have said here, a large part of the community are under false impressions on those issues. If you haven't decided something yet, then people need to hear that too. Personally I think it would be prudent to involve the rest of the community in the decision making process. Otherwise there is the risk that the changes won't be accepted and/or people lose confidence in the coin completely.


I think it is important to do that a year from now when it matters more, there is more data, and we can make a more informed decision.


Just some thoughts and things to consider.

  1. Hardware. Video cards, mining rigs, hard drive space, ram, will be at 10,000
    times from what we have today 20 years from now. Millions of cell phones could end
    up becoming the distributed network for all transactions & proof of work.

  2. Coins will be lost. A little bit of inflation is not a bad idea.
    The latest annual inflation rate for the United States is 1.5% through
    the 12 months ended December 2013. 1.5% maybe too much. 1% for the entire
    globe might be better than 5%. If Dogecoin becomes $1.00 per coin then 1%
    would be a billion dollars a year distributed reward for a proof of work.

  3. Proof of skate + proof of work reward to encourage a little savings.
    If everyone becomes a miner because of new powerful cellphone technology then
    a proof of skate system combined with proof of work could be a good way for people
    to make money with interest. This would encourage people not to dump all there
    coins because the more you have, the more interest you make. This would increase
    the price of the coin because less coins will be on the market. This would counter
    the annual inflation rate. Not sure if we can implement such an update.

  4. Transaction fees. People don't like them. That's why people don't like
    credit card companies. Keeping these fee to very very minimum is important in
    the long run. I would even say the coin with ZERO transaction fees in the future
    may be a winner. A little inflation may work better than a transaction fee.

Coins will be lost. A few extra coins per year is not a bad idea. Too many extra
coins is not a good idea.


Well, it's hard to say what is the right moment to announce, what changes according the 100 bil cap and continued mining are going to happen. Things are going fine now, why create problems? Otherwise investors like clarity.
The thing, I am pretty sure about, is that changing the 100 bil cap. to 200 bil is way too much. It will be a big disappointment for a lot of doge-holders. Going for 110 or 120 bil will be appreciated a lot more. And it is needless to go for a 200 bil cap.

After block 600.000 going to 10000 per block until we reach 100 bil looks fine to me.
Going down to 5000 per block after reaching 100 bil, will provide 50001440365=2,628 bil coins per year.
Halving every year will eventually lead to coins

When, after 100 bil, we do 5000 per block and halve every 2 years we end up with 110.512.000.000

Halving every 4 years will lead to

All these 3 options will cause a lot less of a shock compared to the announcement that we will proceed to 200 bill.

And that's what it is all about. In the beginning there was made an unclear contradicting announcement, that has to be resolved in a way that; it will not shock anyone and the network will be secured.


@dogecoin This is a very simple economic problem that currently boils down the following function:

function dogesurvival{
if doge.miningprofit > othercoins.miningprofit {
return 1;
return 0;

Since the market cap and difficulty are changing all the time, the most profitable coin will change from time to time, so lets assume the miningprofit in the function above is an average.

Lets look at this function for a moment. Why is this function an appropriate indicator of dogecoin survival?

There are two reasons. Miners a) secure the network. b) are marketers for the coin.

a) Without miners, someone with a large scrypt farm or 10Gh multipool will come along and 51% the coin for fun and profit. this has happened to other alt-coins many times
b) Without miners, you won't see a 25,000 strong community of shibes on reddit posting 'Hi Shibes! Just mined my first 10,000 doge today! to the moon!' and telling all their friends about it. When the reward is so low that Shibes mine 10 doge a day, they won't bother doing it. (unless exchange rate is super high (more on this later)).

Now that we understand the dogesurvival() function, lets evaluate daily doge.miningprofit. There are 60 * 24 = 1440 blocks a day.

daily doge.miningprofit = BLOCK_REWARD * 1440 * EXCHANGE_RATE

This equation should make something very clear. As BLOCK_REWARD decreases, EXCHANGE_RATE needs to increase to compensate and keep the doge.minigprofit steady. But, when the EXCHANGE_RATE increases, the market cap of the coin increases as well. The market cap of the coin is the most important number. It is the benchmark everyone uses to determine if the coin is overvalued or undervauled compared to other coins.

Now assuming all else is equal, lets see what market cap we'd need in 217 days. Right now we're mining around 500BTC worth of DOGE a day. In 217 days, if we keep the 10,000 reward we have:

doge.mininprofit.daily = 10,000 * 1440 * EXCHANGE_RATE
500 = 10,000 * 1440 * EXCHANGE_RATE.
EXCHANGE_RATE = 500 / (10,000 * 1440) = ~ 0.0000 3500

Lets see what an exchange rate like this means in terms of market cap.

doge.marketcap = COINS_MINED * EXCHANGE_RATE = 100,000,000 * 0.00003500 = 3,500,000 BTC.
If BTC is worth $3,000 in 217 days, AND for doge to continue to be most profitably mined scrypt-coin assuming that litecoin maintains its current ratio,

a) dogecoin will be have to be worth $10 Billion USD.
b) litecoin and all the other scrypt-coins need to crash in value and DOGE needs to replace them all and become the benchmark.

b is unlikely to happen, because miners psychologically don't seem to like to mine coins once the inflation rate is too low. The only way to prevent this is if FESS_ONLY can replace the block reward, and since it is certain that fees will not be enough to compensate miners in 217 days, this is not an option. There are around 5-10 doge transactions per block. This means TX_FEE would have to increase 1000 DOGE in 217 days to have an chance of keeping miners around. Who will want to spend 1000 DOGE in fees for every transaction in 217 days?

If the exchange rate is 150 satoshis in 217 days, then
doge.miningprofit.daily = 10,000 * 1440 * 0.00000100 = 21.6 BTC per day in profit. This is a far cry from the current 400-500BTC, and will likely be much less then Litecoin will produce unless litecoin dies out in 217 days.

Conclusion: Unless the market cap of DOGE increases drastically in 217 days, OR all the other alt-coins die off in 217 days, shibe will have a bad day.


@dogecoin Regarding the concern that this should be addressed on the forums, I would suggest using the following statement, or something to its effect.

"Concerns have been raised that the block reward schedule, as it currently stands, will not incentivize miners to continue mining in the coming months. With the current TX_FEE reward of 5-10 DOGE per block, it is nearly certain that fees alone will not be enough. Raising fees much higher is not an option since we are already higher the Bitcoin on a percentage basis. We are monitoring the situation and will act accordingly in a quatative and data-driven manner in order to do what is best for doge."


@fract4l thanks for the math, and I like the forum statement. That gives a starting point, at least. I'll correct the small point of 217 days until 10k flat rewards (the schedule will make it a little over a year until that, and then presumably 217 days of 10k rewards), but your points still stand.

I must say, though, this analysis paints a very bleak picture for all scrypt coins. Restating part A of your basic thesis is "If a scrypt coin is not profitable enough to maintain hashrate over multipools, it will not survive." Which, restated another way, is "Currently, only dogecoin and litecoin are non-dead scrypt coins, and all the rest of them are dead."

Part B of the thesis is "Dogecoin must always be more profitable than litecoin and any other potential scrypt coin to pop up throughout its lifespan for it to maintain hashrate above multipools / to get the multipools to mine you without issues." This is a logical point assuming Part A is true.

If I accept these, though, I have to completely disagree with "very simple economic problem" :) Making the block time 2 minutes instead of 1 minute will just extend the life of the coin another x-months before it's dead according to this definition, unless the price catches up to 500 BTC/day each time the reward is reduced (which is controlled by traders, not algorithms). 1 year of 50 B rewards is 95,129 coins/min average, 2 years of 50 B rewards is 47,565/min coin average, 3 years of 50 B rewards is 31,710 coins/min average released, so making it last longer also reduces the reward, which means that great care has to be taken in order to reach an optimal solution.

There's also a ton of unknowns. Litecoin is 850 BTC/day at current trading value, but 187 BTC/day a year ago. Infinity new scrypt coins can pop up in the year, and any number of them could catch on. Scrypt ASICs are supposed to come out this year and change the landscape quite a bit. Multipools seem to keep growing --, hashcows, and middlecoin already make up over 25 GH/s together, which is again, bigger than any single coin other than Litecoin (Dogecoin only gets 50 GH/s when all the multipools are on it). One interesting and actual predictable target is that Litecoin rewards will halve around October 2015, so at least that can be considered (i.e. making sure the rewards don't go to their lowest until after Litecoin halves).

Otherwise, this problem seems to be mathematically impossible unless the coin value reaches some absurd level (i.e. 1/10th to 1/5th of bitcoin's market cap), which isn't in our control. I don't think halving the coin rewards via making the block time 2x solves any problems your analysis has brought up, it just delays them a bit. Any concrete math based solutions?


Since blockrewards finally wil drop with all the coins, the main point is securing the network, I guess.
How about possibilities like; implementing automatic mining ( prolly doesn't do the job, because cpu<<<<<<gpu) whenever a doge wallet is openend, to keep up a high total hashrate forever?
I am not a technical guy, but I read in an qrk-thread something about checkpoints they did build in, to be safe against an 51% attack.


Does that help assuage the uncertainty?

Does that help assuage the uncertainty?


I slept on this for a day or two and have decided that thing that is making me itchy is the discrepancy between what the announcement and all other public information have to say about the cap versus what the code actually does. It may seem silly since that code isn't going to be hit for a long while, but I think what would make me personally feel better is to put the cap in the next release so the public information agrees with the code.

That doesn't mean I'm saying the coin definitely needs to be capped at 100,000,000,000 coins any more than leaving it in means the block reward will continue indefinitely at 10,000 coins. It may seem silly, but I feel it's important that the code and the information presented to the public are kept in agreement. This seems especially true in light of the increased attention that dogecoin is receiving lately. If this discrepancy is noticed outside the group I'm concerned that it could turn into a bit of a PR headache.

At any point thereafter the powers that be can crunch all the numbers and determine what changes, if any, are necessary for the continued well being of the coin.

I hope this seems reasonable and you will consider making this small change.


@somegeekintn Consider this:

A) I could make the change now and force everyone to adopt a new release and then change it again later to something more intelligent and make everyone adopt another new release.


B) I could change it later to something more intelligent and make everyone adopt a new release.

Which is better and less likely to cause problems?


@dogecoin if the plan is to address this in the next release then that might make sense. However, given that you said

I think it is important to do that a year from now when it matters more, there is more data, and we can make a more informed decision.

I was under the impression that a decision wouldn't be reached for some time. Surely there will be additional releases before then where the cap could be quietly fixed. The new v1.5 release based on Litecoin for example. This seems a minor change compared to moving to the Litecoin codebase and unlikely to cause problems.


If I just fix it quietly there is a timebomb fork in the code. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait on fixing it when we have the right solution in mind?


Yeah, I have to agree with dogecoin. It's really bad to change it and find out later you have to change it again. Hopefully in the near future a good solutions is found.


Keep the cap and raise the fees, please.

Longer block target is ok, as it improves network security. (Idea of shorter block target is outright crazy.)

Strong believer in DOGE here.


I'm glad this is being debated. After watching the flood of newcomers on Reddit, I'm not so sure there's going to be a "PR headache" because of the cap. Only a tiny percent know or care about the mechanics. Deciding to put off a decision is a perfectly valid decision!

For an actual solution in the 1-2 year time frame, I think BitcoinMachine's earlier points are all very valid. A currency needs to flow around and who's going to do that if they think it's worth more tomorrow than today? Moreover, it'll slowly hemorrhage coins due to lost wallets. Transaction fees are a huge psychological threshold.


Think very carefully before increasing the block time. "1 minute blocks" is a headline feature of Dogecoin, and fast confirmation is a big part of what makes it beginner friendly. (It's one of the reasons I personally am behind the currency.) Don't throw that away lightly. Using a block time change as a way to "buy time" is not the right way to go about things.


How can you be behind 1 min block time? Its statically proven that its insecure and dangerous.
1 min is often not even enough time to for block propagation.
It generates alot of orphans for example.


We need to consider the block time issue and the inflation issue as separate issues. If we decide to double the block time, we can double the block reward, to decouple these two different problems.

  1. Block time. It goes without saying that the utility of a cryptocurrency increases dramatically with the decrease of its block time. Having a 10 second block time, for example, would allow the coin to be used directly as a Point of Sale transaction backbone. While that isn't possible right now, we need to keep in mind that the shorter the block time, the more use we will find for Doge, and usage multiplies the value of a coin.

  2. Inflation. This is a sensitive subject in this community so I will not debate the Economics of Inflation. Suffice to say that miners are the backbone of the community and the lower we can keep the transaction fees the more adoption we can engender. A gentle block reward of 5% per year means that the currency price will remain more stable (at a much higher value than today), allow for 5% economic growth, and reward miners sufficiently to keep transaction fees low, if not perhaps someday zero - and that benefits everyone. We should realize that if Doge is successful, it should increase 20x to supplant LTC, and another 50x if it beats BTC. We should not be arguing over 5%.


tmairegasnighto: Please inform yourself about Block target time. Wanting time under 1 min is really crazy and dangerous. 1 min is already to short and many clever people are explaining/proving it statically.

Just think about why Satoshi chosen 10 minutes, this brilliant guy worked years on Bitcoin and came up with 10 minutes. This has reasons. I talked with some other cryptocoin people working senior positions at Bits of Proof and Coinbase, they all say 1 minute is to short and leads to problems (attacks, orphans, bigger block size, ...).

So going under 1 minute is outright crazy and destructive.


regergregregerrge is right. Besides, obviously even a minute is too long a wait at a counter, so it doesn't actually make any difference whether the block time is a minute or 2. It's basically just marketing hype.

Anyway, if doubling the block time is too big a change, how about making it 80 seconds with the next update or something? That would be so small that it can't have catastrophic results, especially after the recent price run-up. Then you could see how it goes and possibly increase by 20-40 seconds more later if needed. The only problem people come up with in regards to doubling the block time is it's a big change. Thus starting with increasing by just 20 seconds as soon as possible might be a good approach.


@regergregregerrge and @miikao The relation between 51% attack and scalability is a complex problem. Blocks time only contribute a little portion to 51% attack risk. I sugess you read this paper:

@regergregregerrge Guys at Bits of Proof and Coinbase are not God or someone like that. You should post their arguments here so everyone can see it and discuss.


If ummJackson or Dogecoin really consider shortening the block target. I will ask all crypto-people I know to give a long statement and proof here.

DOGE already has problem with orphaned blocks, e.g. 49 (3.41%) yesterday. See
And look at Quark, shorter block time even more orphans, they got over 100(!) in one day.

Litecoin got 0 with 2,5 minutes block time. Thats the way to go.

Orphaned blocks are really bad:

  • they make confirmations take longer
  • they allow attacks
  • they waste energy and hashing power

To short block time is a design fail, you can google that, there are many papers and posts on it. Doges block time already is to short.


Not trying to defend orphaned blocks, but your "they waste energy and hashing power" makes me raise an eyebrow quizzically.

Doesn't the whole concept of cryptocurrencies depend on "wasting energy and hashing power"?


Right now it seems to be the social disincentive that keeps multipools from attacking small coins. People are playing nice while the market overall is winning. However once a few multipools go into decline we'll see more risks. As crypto markets level out small coins may come under attack, only a few majors will remain. I think that's the nature of this and cannot be avoided. For Doge, we should aim to be in the top three.


I agree with @cloud6 that multipools are the most dangerous factor that can destroy altcoins in medium term. One option to defend again multipools are switching from POW to POW/POS hybrid model like peercoin after block 600,000.


I will absolutely not shorten the block time.

@cloud, I personally don't think there is any financial incentive for multipools to attack coins, that would be extreme short term thinking to kill a source of income. Motivation would almost certainly be malicious, yet with low hash the threat isn't really there either. It's an interesting problem.

I think fractl's earlier post did a great job describing the potential issues going forward. I believe all scrypt coins face this with the current landscape, and all but dogecoin and litecoin are currently vulnerable but this could change at any time since traders control the price. What I haven't seen is a math backed solution. I'm asserting that there isn't one but it would be great to have that assertion disproven.


If people are worried about that, they have to remember that we'll all be dead by then.

Believe it or not, modern economic models price things up to 100 years and more (mortgage defaults and government debt are good examples, and hell, even some stock pricing models price in dividends for more than 100 years). Setting the inflation to 100 years is not sufficient. 100 years is also low enough to impact estate planning. You need to make it two orders of magnitude higher or it will still be considered deflationary and we'll see a destructive boom/bust pattern than will prevent adoption. It doesn't need to be 5%. 2-3% is sufficient.

It's important to understand that inflation brings stability to a currency at a very small price. Paying 2-3% per year is nothing when you consider that a stable currency is worth orders of magnitudes more than an unstable one (cough bitcoin cough). Who cares if we lose 2-3% if Doges will be worth 100000% more?


I think it is very important to be very careful about how you solve the problem, and how you communicate it. The value of a cryptocurrency is backed by psychology, and psychology only. Hence, the solution must be technically sound, and perceived as technically sound. Failing to achieve both can ruin the coin.
Whatever you do, I suggest that you don't use the word inflation. First of all, increasing the money supply is not technically the same as inflation. But more importantly, many cryptocurrency fans are libertarians who are averse to the word inflation. Even people with more mainstream views don't want to hear the word inflation when they think about their hard-earned cash.
Second, don't use the number 200 billion EVER, even if that is a projection of a gazillion years into the future. People will forget the context of your statement, but they will not forget the number. Worse, people with a vested interest in sinking Dogecoin will jump on that number and use it to trash-talk the Doge.
Third, don't change the one minute block time if at all possible. It is one of the most important aspects that distinguish it from Litecoin. Blurring that distinction can only hurt the Doge. On a psychological level, such an invasive fix will collide with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" reflex. In other words, it suggest that there is something wrong with the Doge, and that perception can only hurt it.
How do you reconcile the reward schedule with the 100 billion cap? For now, I would treat it like the non-issue it is. Dogecoin was meant as a joke, and nobody could anticipate that the joke would last long enough to mature the coin all the way to the cap. Next, if Dogecoin really takes off, millions of people will have a laptop/smart phone with a couple of thousand Dogeoins on it for tipping, and many of those will not bother to transfer those when they change their phone or laptop. That's easily 5 billion Dogecoins destroyed annually. Just say that the 10,000 Dogecoin reward will keep the actual number of coins around 100 billion. It can even give you a reason to fine tune the reward based on market cap, hash rate and monetary value of the newly mined coins.


I'm glad I finally read adevissc comment. I agree with everything he says. Keep one minute if at all possible! Can someone explain why a few orphaned blocks are so bad?
Also, I see a lot of people doing a ton of math, but really miss the big picture. That's in regards to the coin limit. In a year and a half we'll have 100B coins mined. Why stop at any number at all? Like it was mentioned, some coins will be lost forever each and every year. However, at the same time we are expecting doges economy to increase. World economy will also increase. What would be 5% inflation the first year, will decrease to 2.5% inflation by the year 20, and to 1.25% inflation by the year 60. Technically speaking, we'd have the ever decreasing inflation of coins. So what if it will lose 5% the first year, and 50% of value(considering no coins lost) by the year 20. My hope is that market expansion will more than make it up for that measly loss. We'll keep the miners happy as well as keep transaction cost insignificant. If we are not expanding more than 5% a year, a year and a half from now, then DOGE was meant to die sooner or later anyways.


P.S.: I consider orphaned blocks part of the cost of doing business with one or another crypto. That's why they should include it their profit calculations. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Saving miners 3% or 5% of their income while making some radical change to the whole system and risking alienating or scaring the first adopters and speculators just doesn't make sense. Predictability and trust are worth a ton more. If there is something big that I'm missing, please enlighten me.


Orphaned blocks simply means wasted work. That 3-5% of blocks you're losing is security that you could otherwise have for free. This chart compares orphans in btc to ltd and doge.

Block time and orphans isn't the big problem with DOGE though.... The problem is block rewards halving too quickly before the market has a chance to mature. By the time we're at FEE rewards only (around 1 year), there won't be enough incentive for miners to bother mining the coin (unless doge is worth billions). It's likely a reward will have to stay in the coinbase past block 600,000.


My take: Fix the cap and leave it alone as advertised. Let the market forces dictate whether mining is profitable or not. The only sensible course of action for any crypto currency is to keep it deflationary. It's concerning that this discussion is even taking place. If the cap is removed I think the currency will die.


All we need is technology breakthrough :). We need strong network. What about light DOGE client with included miner which will use only 5% of CPU or something like that. Can we prevent 51% attack with some kind of limiting power per node. In network (after all block will be mined) where rewords is nonexistent or very little it make sense. Just thinking.


I was going to say exactly that. When a coin is deflationary, people hoard it, and stop using it. After a while, the circulation of the coin is so low that a single hoarder trying to cash out causes a crash because there is no-one to buy. Initially the coin recovers quickly because other hoarders will see a buying opportunity, but if the confidence in the coin erodes, there is no "real" economy (people buying stuff with the coin) to cushion the blow when the crash comes. A coin that is hoarded is ultimately a zero-sum game: for every dollar someone gains on it, someone else has to lose a dollar when everyone runs to the exit. Only with a sustainable economy where thousands of people have coins in their wallets for daily use can have lasting value. I am in favor of keeping dogecoins rolling, and a cap will strangle it.


I completely disagree with the cap.
Right now we have roughly 700M coins added PER DAY. Having a hard cap is not beneficial in the long run. Each and every year we'll have wallets lost, forgotten, and accidentally destroyed. That leads us to a deflationary currency, where in the long run(infinity) we are left with 0 coins. Hard cap also encourages hoarding which is not good for a currency. DOGE would not get USED much and as a result would not become a widely accepted currency. If, regardless, our economy(hoarding) keeps expanding, we'll start dealing with fractions, and the currency will lose it's current appeal. Our transfer fees are also insignificant, another of the DOGE's appeals. So when all the coins are minted, how do we keep the miners around? Having a hard cap is short-sighted on many levels. Leaving the code as is, we would be adding 50 times less coins per day. I don't know if that's a desirable number, but we can see how it plays out in the near future.
My proposals for now:
1. Keep 1 minute confirmations, increase the block size if necessary.
2. Implement POW/POS
3. Keep 10,000 coins per block indefinitely after the last halving. That pays for the miners' work, accounts for a moderate expansion and lost coins. Like I explained a few posts back, that leads us to the ever decreasing inflation of currency.


What is this crazy talk about POS? Proof of stake is good for making the rich richer with ridiculous (so far) interest rates, it encourages hoarding and does nothing to help the miners verifying blocks at all.

In other news - someone started another big inflation vs deflation thread on Reddit again, but the arguments / analysis so far are weak.

Pro deflation:

  • Don't want to scare away the miners and investors
  • Coins are infinitely divisible so it's no a problem
  • People who got in early deserve a big payout (how did this become a top comment?!)
  • "A manipulation like this throws A LOT of trust away"

Pro inflation:

  • Need more coins for wallet / unclaimed tip losses and new users
  • Promotes consumption/usage/spending/tipping instead of hoarding
  • Current logic is 5% max, but averages to 2.8% per year over 40 years which is probably less than a real world currency ($1 stays Ɖ1000, instead of $1 = Ɖ500 because Ɖ does not increase in supply like USD). Keeping it this way makes sense economically.
  • Without coins created by mining no one can buy it for a reasonable price, and once the community doesn't care anymore, Ɖ dies.

My opinion:
The standard crypto-coin design with a fixed cap is a historical artifact from the past, it was once decided this way, but if we're to create a currency with real users, it might be the best to let it go. A 5% inflation is easily manageable and I'm pretty sure the value of Ɖ will grow faster than that with more users pouring in each year. A fixed cap means certain deflation, and no one knows how bad lost wallet and unclaimed coins will make it.

The ones making the most noise in the pro-deflation camp aren't the ones we want to serve, if we're to become the Internet's currency, we'll have to reach the mainstream users which don't care about hoarding massive amounts of Ɖ for profit, the max 5% loss of value per year caused by inflation in the worst case or broken promises on a Bitcointalk thread. They care about having a currency where micropayments are properly implemented (without the insane fees and minimums PayPal & friends want) and tipping is effortless.


@chkwok I agree that serving the hoarders is not in Dogecoin's best interest. Ultimately, hoarders are slow pump-and-dumpers, and it is in their interest that their final dump destroys the currency so they can go on hyping a new one.
Dogecoin is hoarded too much as it is. As I write, the Dogecoin trading volume on Cryptsy is around 800 million in the last 24 hours, and yet the price is stable. The generation of Dogecoins is 700 million, so either the miners are hoarding, or the people buying those mined Dogecoins are hoarding. Either way, I don't see any evidence that the current issue of new Dogecoins is supported by an increase of actual Doge use. And that worries me.
I could be wrong (I certainly hope so). Perhaps a lot of kids are buying Dogecoins for tipping, and few recipients cash in their tips. That's ultimately how we want Dogecoin to grow.


Looks like the cat is out of the bag, and some damage control needs to be done. I don't know what 'Dogecoin' is thinking or doing, but I see an amazing publicity opportunity. A statement could be submitted to media outlets with a similar message:
"Recent speculation has stirred up some discussions within the best cryptocurrency community - the dogecoin. We'd like to clarify that there are no intentions to modify the original framework of dogecoin. That means that after the last halving our miners will indefinitely be rewarded with 10,000 dogecoins per block. As such, dogecoin will avoid problems that exist with a hard cap cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and litecoin. Hard cap drawbacks include: currency hoarding and price manipulation, possible transaction fee increase, unstable and shrinking network of miners, and the ever-shrinking amount of available monetary units. Meanwhile, dogecoin is committed to becoming an internet currency that is fluid, stable, difficult to manipulate, widely accepted and distributed, easily available, and most importantly, used by the people instead of hoarded away. At this moment dogecoin already surpasses the king of the hill of cryptocurrencies in the volume of transactions. On the path to the Moon we intend to keep the design of the currency, and make changes only and only if its value, security, and fluidity are threatened."
This is very concise, but you get the gist. Use parts of it or all, whatever you see fit. A little of publicity wouldn't hurt. We'd also get some attention from companies and people dealing with bitcoin and litecoin. Lets be the leaders, lets put dogecoin on the map!


@siaubas I can see your point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from "Wow, so value" to "Recent speculation has steered up..." Is there really a reason to give up the underdog (underdoge?) position so fast? Too much interest from investors can only undermine the viability of a cryptocurrency. First and foremost, Dogecoin should cater to the users, with more apps and visibility on Facebook and Twitter. I see a lot of cryptocurrencies fail because the developers left the enduser out of the equation. Look at 42coin, the ultimate hoarder's coin. After a spectacular introduction on Cryptsy that derailed the budding growth of Dogecoin for a couple of days, the market cap of 42coin is down to a few hundred BTC.


Speculation - as in there are lots of discussions taking place right now. It's obvious we will not be #1 anytime soon, if ever. However, I see no problem pushing a little publicity. IMO, we need to steal some of the attention. There are talks that Google is teaming up with Bitcoin. If bitcoin establishes itself everywhere, it's going to be much tougher getting our foot in the door. In the meantime, no one is going away, dogemmunity is just too exciting of a crowd, I don't see how more eyes on us can hurt.


@adevissc @siaubas

The problem is there are no successful coins that use inflation so that makes the cryptocoin vets uneasy about adopting that model. I would venture to guess most doge coiners do not care more than 5 minutes worth of attention to the inflation deflation model. Why not lower the inflation target to an arbitrary 1% to 2% as a happy medium between the deflation and inflation camp. There is still a lot of time to evaluate the effects of inflation and deflation in cryptocurrencies.

FWIW Publicity Idea:
We could organize transmitting transactions from the moon using Earth Moon Earth radio with ametuer radio and scientific radio operators who do this to commemorate the Apollo landing on the moon in April. Alternatively it would be a great tie-in to recent high visibility events like buying dinner for the Sochi athletes the night of their last event.


@jcrubino I'm not sure I understand your point - at two levels. First, Bitcoin is still in an inflationary stage, and it will be almost three years until its inflation rate drops below 5%. That doesn't seem to hamper its success. Second, it has always been my point that the vets won't make the long-term success of Dogecoin - the general public will. The vets can break Dogecoin, though, with pump & dump tactics. If anything, uneasy vets is a reassuring thing in my opinion.


@adevissc My main point is that I think that it is too early in the life cycles of cryptocurrencies to decide the distribution model. The current rate of inflation is not hampering pump and dumps.... it is going to be pump and dump until there is an algorithm that fends off gpus on up as the core /r/dogecoin shibe seems aloof to cryptocurrency inner workings. I doubt that the core miners of dogecoin make up a substantial amount of the 49,000 subscribed shibes. If this is even remotely true it puts cryptocoin vets mining in charge of the network and dogecoins primary investors. Just some points to ponder.

Dogecoin is successful because people have fun with it. /r/dogecoiners are not interested in the distribution model or anything beyond tipping, charity and art-works which is huge leap from most altcoins who's users are steeped in theory or the price and network hashing figures.


If the coin is capped at 100B, and the fees are not raised, but the value of the coin has increased substantially - wouldn't that be sufficient to pay the miners? What type of increase in value would you need to see in order to pay the miners enough to keep mining without raising the fees?


@ Mycodakon
We cannot have a hard cap. PERIOD. Wallets are lost every day. A hard cap means in the long run we have 0 available coins. Also, that encourages hoarding. Then, if we impose higher fees, why would anyone bother with cryptos, when you can deal with VISA, and not be afraid of losing your wallet, and unauthorized charges?


I think the biggest problem is we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. As it stands we are headed for a 2.5% inflation rate in twenty years, not a monetary supply of zero. I am compelled to say there is not a problem to deal with for at least 10 to 15 years.


@jcrubino, no it is a problem NOW. In finance we price contracts for life spans of decades all the time (eg 30-year mortgages and treasury bonds). We price those TODAY - so saying: "we'll have inflation for at least 15-20 and then who cares" is beyond ignorant of how modern finance works.


@tmairegasnighto "Beyond Ignorant" You're on github, not the Barron's forum so get used to it. You will have to be more specific in your illustrations of problems and solutions for dogecoin for non finance experts like myself to understand. Until then you are not offering anything of substance to the discussion.

I am sure many more non finance experts here like myself are asking why the hell are your worried about a mortgage contract in dogecoin... if people are not even buying milk and eggs with it?

My sentiment is in no way "don't care", it is rather lets deal with the problems when there is enough data to define the problem and not run ahead of ourselves with economic theory.


@jcrubino, apologies for my tone. If you want Doge to be something more than it is, you need to think far ahead at how inflation impacts economic growth of a future cryptocurrency economy - it's no small task. This is especially important since it seems (at least in the case of Bitcoin) that it is essentially impossible to change the inflation equation after even early adoption. So getting it right Now is as important as fixing it later. In essence, the money supply must keep pace with demand (growth in commerce) or you get deflation. Despite the seemingly endless population of people online that think deflation is good, deflation is very solidly agreed to be very bad in the academic Economics community, as well as in the industry. It is great as a way for early adopter to cash out (and the greed perpetuates the attitude in these communities), but it is horrible for running an economy. Currency should not be a store of wealth. That is exactly the opposite of what currency is for. Currency, like the oil in an engine block, is best when it has high money velocity, ease of universal exchangeability, divisibility, and counterfeit proof.

Perpetual growth of the global economy should be expected as people/systems become more efficient, supply chains increase in complexity, populations grow, populations move from 2nd to 1st world, etc... A healthy money supply growth must keep pace with the economy in perpetuity. This means that even Dogecoin's current "unfixed" growth is deflationary because the percentage growth will not ultimately keep pace as the fixed increase in coins becomes a smaller and smaller percentage.

Why do we care what happens after 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years? Because if you're not building a currency for the long haul, then what's the point? If you're just building a fad, then we should just pump and dump and move on to the next coin. You either try to get it right forever, or forget it.


I mostly agree, but the problem lies in the number. What percentage do you set? Which number is that thin line between deflation and inflation? No matter what, at first it will be deflationary as it is right now(because of the growth). One of the reasons people are excited about cryptos is their deflationary nature(bitcoin). I think we should think about some middle ground. If we make it just the same as fiat, then what's the benefit of having one? You cannot predict exact percentage of expansion, and that's why fiat has governing bodies. And that's another gripe of people. They'd rather trust math than a government. Seems like no easy solutions here, and whatever the changes are going to be made, they are not going to be perfect. So what are the choices?
1. hard cap. IMO, that would be the worst choice, so I'm not even going to discuss it.
2. fixed percentage above average growth, say 4%. Once the initial growth has ended, people would be discouraged to hoard. I wouldn't be against it, but wouldn't it hinder doges' growth?
3. fixed percentage at the average global growth, say 3%. Maybe the most sane choice, but I'm afraid there won't be an incentive for people to switch from fiat to crypto.
4. fixed percentage below world's average growth, say 2%. This way way it would slowly be appreciating, but maybe not enough to hoard it?
5. fixed coins per new block, basically as designed right now. First we have some inflationary years for which the expansion should more than make up, many years away becoming deflationary with a constant stream of coins.

Did I miss anything? Thoughts?


@tmairegasnighto @siaubas

I am not against an inflationary model at all. I disagree with the point that this cannot be changed later. As far as I know, the bitcoin core devs within the last year have acknowledged that they can change the supply, redistribution and transaction fee equation in the future (as they plan for the next release). If there is one coin community that you can change the supply and distribution model in the future without a fuss by the core userbase it would be dogecoin. Informed users are not going to put up a fuss so long as they are warned and informed before the code changes take place.

In this discussion I have proposed and low inflation model and prudence to see what data trends shows the situation is in the future and adjust from there. I think that is more useful to the community than just signing off on an hardcoded economic strategy and school of thought two months into the dogecoin experiment. FWIW, the tech industry lives with deflation as part of the industry norm so that is why it is a popular model with early adopters of cryptocoins who are tech savy. Additionally, I think it would be worth more to the dogecoin community to say... "We aim to keep dogecoins value no more than X usd/cny/eur at any given point in the future." That keeps the guiding strategy tangible to the community and predictable for more advanced participants.


100 bi should be the hard limit, and it needs to be fixed asap as some shills from other coins are using this argument to attack doge, no forever creation of coins is one less variable in the equation of doge value, making it more stable in the long run.


They can use that argument all they want. They are attacking, because they know that a hard cap is just not going to work. They are too slow to change, while DOGE would steal the show.
There is nothing good about a hard cap. In the long run, a currency would simply die.


Thanks for contributing to this discussion. Based on everyone’s feedback, we’ve decided to leave the Dogecoin code base as it was originally released, and not implement a change. The goal for the currency is to keep approximately 100 billion coins in circulation - thus after 100 billion Dogecoins are created, rewards will continue at 10k each block. This will help maintain mining and stabilize the number of coins in circulation (considering lost wallets and various other ways coins may be destroyed) at 100 billion.

@ummjackson ummjackson closed this

Is it 10k for each block, or 0 to 10k?


Fixed at 10k per block. :+1:


I don't know if it's the best possible outcome, but some kind of decision is better than no decision at all. As long as we don't have a hard cap, which it sounds that we don't, I'm fine with that.
To the Moon! ;)


Cool. Thanks for killing the profitability of the currency. Now it's going to be worthless in a couple of years and never reach the value of BitCoin or even anywhere close.


@MadCold Sorry, you must have missed the memo - we're going to the moon!

But in all seriousness, check out some of the great discussion over on Reddit:


@ummjackson good to see you have reached a decision and it is much better this way. However, please be careful with PR. If you say the aim is to keep supply of coins at about 100 billion, either people are going to call bullshit on that or think there is something seriously wrong with the system if 5 percent of the supply is lost every year (and frankly they would be right if that would always be the case).

If the reason for this decision is indeed lost coins, then you'd have to lower the endgame block rewards to something like 2k - 5k instead of keeping them at 10k. If the reason is something else, then please be honest about it.


We WERE going to the moon, but all of our shit just got cancelled because the coin is going to be worthless now. People that bought in like I did just got royally hosed. I'm going to wait for a spike, sell out of Doge and invest in a currency that has someone behind it that actually wants to make it worth my while to support them.


Jackson i beg you to reconsider your decision. A coin without a market cap is worthless... please!


reconsider please, to 1K instead, this is not good.


As an game engineer the randomness of the block is actually a great incentive for people to keep mining. There's a sense of a jackpot now and then which is fun and goes along with Dogecoin very well and a fixed 10k per block makes it not as cool. I hope this doesn't come off as crazy or anything but how about setting it so it's a random value between 5k to 10k?


@rotaercz I agree, I hope the developers can see your point.


My bet is that ummjackson was paid by the heavy BitCoin backers to kill his own currency because it was starting to look like it could compete. I hope your sellout was worth ruining your own work.


Sadly MadCold is both correct and incorrect. 1k reward would have worked as an offset for losses but at 10k we can expect the currency to dump back down to 50 sat or simply never get above the new floor of 180 sat ever, sadly this announcement has come one day before the boost we would have gotten a massive boost as people are set for interviews on the Today show/Good morning America on monday and CNN on Weds for Dogecoin .. No moon for anyone at this point . I wont speculate on sinister plots , but the timing could NOT BE WORSE. You guys need to rethink this .. really,.


@MadCold here's a comparison of monetary inflation of Dogecoin vs Bitcoin vs Litecoin
ummjackson's reason is to keep the coin alive, not to kill it. Though I have to say that the timing of this news is a bit too early.


i don't want to panic anyone but the dump already started.


Sadly the timing is perfect to tank the value for the near term 12 hours , I would say we will see a spike by monday eve as a whole bunch of people who see the today show interview will buy in by tuesday it will be back to 180 - 200. then everyone with millions of doge will selloff to recoup. and we will probly languish in the 100 - 110 sat for another 3 mos At least a whole lot of professional miners will dump out since the net gain will not pay for their energy costs . 5% is way too high for the offset however. any dreams of seeing 1.00 per coin is really gone now unless they change their minds and move it to 1k


For those new to this discussion and getting scared by the FUD above, read the comments on

What a lot of newshibes fail to realize is that monetary inflation does not mean price inflation. It is possible for a currency to increase in supply and value at the same time. For instance, bitcoin grew 10000% in price the same year when its monetary base also increased by 8%.

There is no reason to think that a 5% inflation would be excessive for dogecoin, because this is actually lower than what bitcoin and litecoin has in the upcoming years.

To investors, traders or "miners" trying to reverse the decision for their own profit: get out, the discussion is over. As for the "crash", the value of this currency is still ill defined, a fall in price without volume means nothing, the last correction from 220 to 167 had 3B coins traded, this one is on 250M, not to mention that the whole 160-190 rise was engineered to begin with, a 1B buy order will do just that.

I'm here for the long term, I'll see what happens after 5 more halvings and the all the big block rewards runs out in a year.


This was just a stupid stupid time to kick the baby bird from the nest. We were just getting our feet under us with a high enough value that new investors and new companies were willing to accept them vs Fiat . They stop calling a currency a joke when it has actual value. I would have doe this after the first split at the earliest. second or third afterwards. People right now accept Doge because they saw it as an investment . the pizza place down the street was accepting them because they saw future rewards , Not that they were going to pay their rent with them (that would have happened in time however) The more retailers that accepted doge the evolution would be that retailers would have exchanged doge amongst themselves . Then it becomes a real currency. goods and services exchanged instead of fiat. But ONLY if it has value that they can relate to .


The announcement could have been a bit more clearer. People now think there's going to be trillions of Dogecoins in the next 2 years being an inflationary currency.


I agree with @rotaercz there should be a clearer announcement for this so people don't get confused. In fact, our 'inflation rate' will be less than Bitcoin till 2017 and less than Litecoin till 2020.


@Captainjackharkness I agree that the timing is VERY suspicious. I've heard of a number of people that were getting ready to speak on the subject of DogeCoin in front of a lot of users. Couple that with the successful fundraising that the community has accomplished over the past few weeks, we would have seen a massive interest in the currency. As of now though, it looks like the price is beginning to plummet and people are dumping DogeCoin as fast as they can.

@ummjackson I demand an explanation for the correlation of you announcing this now and the high profile interviews taking place tomorrow. Why are you trying to kill off the value of DogeCoin right before it takes off?


bad timing. such tinkering. very dump. wow


@MadCold @xnljfr @Captainjackharkness do you agree that the US dollar has value? If, as you seem to be saying, any currency where the total number of coins are not capped is worthless, why is the US dollar valuable when it undergoes 3% inflation every year, which is not much lower than 5%?


@ummjackson I fully support this decision, and I think you've done a great job for all the right reasons discussed within the community. From a finance perspective deflationary monetary systems do not work as they reward hoarding and that is something this project was specially created to address and it is working. At least DOGE has a fully transparent and fixed inflation rollout and not controlled by a reserve bank and closed door meetings.

To all the bleeding hearts, it's not like anybody can complain about a bit of early mining where they assumed it was going to be a deflationary coin because you all had ample opportunity to go mine a different scrypt coin. I think the grass roots mining community backing DOGE have spoken with an increase in hash rate and speculators are foolishly dumping their coins because they have no real interest/conviction in contributing to the future of this currency.


I, for one, love the decision. Dogecoin is not intended as a "srs bznss" currency, and this further reinforces it. @Captainjackharkness: No, small businesses don't (in most cases) accept Dogecoin thinking they'll get rich; it seems that most accept it because they love the spirit of Dogecoin.

This also won't even affect Dogecoin for five block halvings, so unless you plan on hoarding all yours until then this won't affect you.

Also, @madcold and @Captainjackharkness both created their accounts today and have used them for the express purpose of spreading FUD. grr.


@zodiac USD has an established base. It's a currency used by a whole nation, the banks all accept it, it's freely traded and has international recognition. DogeCoin does not. Big difference.

@casalej @chkwok I'm strictly in it for the money. I bought in to massive amounts of DogeCoin when the price was cheap, expecting it to rise. So far it looks like the value of the currency is tanking. Nearly 10c per 1K over the past few hours. I still demand @ummjackson answer for what he's doing to ruin the DogeCoin currency.

@OwenVersteeg Yes I created an account today to talk about how this is a bad decision. Deal with it. This isn't FUD. Go look at the valuation charts for DogeCoin over the past few hours since this was announced.


You always make the best decisions ummJackson, you always think outside the box. for this currency to work there has to be a small amount of inflation(which will get and less every year).

It's good again that you have made the decision now and not later.

I says this to all the people who are full of greed and just want an investment. Sell your Doges and yes this will happens, but those of us who see Doge as a real world currency will buy them ;)

The End.


@MadCold No one promised you any money.


@MadCold There are a lot of people not just "in it for the money", but are actually interested in this being a viable currency. Sorry that you are, and that you made an investment that would still likely pay off, just maybe not as quickly as you intended. Personally, speculators like you are what is wrong with the virtual currency markets and one of the things preventing mass adoption (speculation drives prices up and down, etc, causing instability and insecurity). That being said, the speculation provides a valuable service getting the alt-currencies going, but not sure Dogecoin really needs that kind of help at this point.


@MadCold I'm interested, why do you think dogecoin will become worthless now that the total supply of coins is uncapped? What is the economic reason behind your assertion?


Really wise decision of the Devs!

@MadCold Sorry, I do not wanna be rude but what you are writing makes me sick! If you bought your Coins cheap long time ago sell them now with profit if you do not believe in Dogecoin anymore and invest in Bitcoins. What is the problem? Who promised you anything? You just seem to me like somebody who does even not have basic understanding of money. We want create a currency and not an asset.

I wanna quote this for all other whining shines here: "What a lot of newshibes fail to realize is that monetary inflation does not mean price inflation. It is possible for a currency to increase in supply and value at the same time. For instance, bitcoin grew 10000% in price the same year when its monetary base also increased by 8%."

Read more here:


@nekomata3 why do you think dogecoin "has some value" if it has a capped total supply but "almost totally worthless" if it doesn't?


@ummjackson would there be considered concessions on entertaining the idea of a inflationary rate that is adjustable than a fixed inflation (re-evaluated inflation rate over time to avoid a large amount of surplus coins in circulation). I agree with you of keeping an inflationary stance on this currency however wonder if 10,000 coins per block could be a bit much considering the stance is trying to balance the total amount of coins in circulation to 100 billion.


@sdpenaloza I think what we need is something concrete, whatever it is, and it seems like been arrived at here as "leave as is" at least people can anchor and plan around it

@flyingplatypus this is a neat idea or bump to 20,000 and keep the random reward intact to dissuade volatility in mining "gaming" but it seems the time has passwed and a decision has already been taken here


My assertion on this is simple, for any currency to grow it has to have a base of businesses that will accept it along with a certain level of the population to spend it at these businesses. The problem here is two fold. But lets take a moment,. and talk about a fiat currency like the dollar for a moment . How did the dollar start? well it was a note based on the gold standard. It had a value based on gold in the vault . And because of it people and business accepted it . It had a base value based on a tangible asset , IE the rarity of gold. Now we are no longer on the gold standard have been for 80 years . But by then we had an acceptance , the "social agreement" as it were that this sovereign currency had value. So lets take cryptocurrency like doge, Ultimately we are making value out of nothing, however the ultimate base value is the "fiat standard" not unlike the "gold standard." Doge is a very very VERY young currency. If it had reached a "social agreement" on value universally (I could pay rent or car payment with it ) then it was going to be just fine. But here is the problem, because of the lack of "fiat value" per coin there are very few people have any interest beyond the initial investment stage. We had JUST gotten the fine hairlike tendrils into businesses and exchanges to be able to begin construction of the social framework that makes a currency have value in the 'real world" as in feed your family real word. I think there should have been some deflationary aspects to the currency , but this move was too soon and too much. And I fear everyone is going to suffer for it. We were about to break into the big time in the meda , what was the rush on this?


@zodac :+1: very wise words thanks for sharing... either people are committed to doge or they are not if you want to support something else there are 100s of other projects and they will continue to be mined for years


@flyingplatypus I do like that idea, greatly =).

@casalej True true, I do like flyingplatypus's idea though, and hope the devs could consider this.


I hope im wrong and this is good for doge.


@ummjackson I have no qualms about the decision here but am curious if you want to peg dogecoin to a value band or point or will dogecoin float without interventions in the future.


You people that just signed up need to calm down!!!
This is the best decision for doge, for miners, for speculators, and for every day users. It dropped a little, but only to drive out the weak. Just chill out for a bit, relax, and wait a few days. This is actually GREAT news, and doge more than bounce back. We are going to the Moon!!!
I'm not going to repeat the things that have been explained here over and over again, why no cap is infinitely better than a hard cap. Maybe start at the very beginning of this discussion, click on the links, educate yourself!
Now to address the question of lost coins vs 5 billion additional supply a year: in the beginning there might be a little more coins coming into the market than coins lost each year. However, at some point we WILL reach an equilibrium where those 5 billion coins replace the lost coins. Again, start from the very top of this discussion. Breathe. Give doge a few days and you will see for yourself!!!


@ummjackson do you even know how many people exactly want dogecoin,u just cant see.just a puppy ,want fight a about wait sevral months to decide it,and should not we vote?or you just want be Zimbabwe?


@ummjackson why people choose BTC,LTC ?you should think about it!


I'm in for the best interest of dogecoin, but not having a hard cap is difficult to see as a good thing. Believe it or not even the dollar has a hard cap, the federal reserve doesn't make new money everyday, and not everyone in the united states can make their own dollars. The most viable way to do this for dogecoin is to make hard caps as the current amount is being used, for example: When it reaches 100 billion perhaps it can have additional 50 billion and so on.

Also, to those saying "only aristocrats will be able to own doges" if the cap is not removed, what's the idea behind it? Mining doges becomes difficult as more people dig them, it has nothing to do with the amount of doges.One or two big whales pumping doges will have an infinite amount of doges if the cap market is removed, it will never solve its problem for demand and it will drop the value on doge (as a currency or not).

In order to make doge a currency, you have to make it stand somewhere. If big whales get millions of doges by mining, then it will cost thousands if not millions to afford something insignificant with dogecoins. Hell, stores will probably look at the price on the market to even accept the currency. Obviously the problem here is how people get the coins, which is a problem without a solution. People with farms of mining rigs will always get more coins than those who don't. Which is the reason why cryptocurrencies will always be seen as stock, because those who can't afford big rigs will pay for coins which are mined by big whales.

The best solution here is to spread the word on dogecoins and make people mine it, so everyone get's an even amount of doges at the same time. Bitcoin difficulty stands at 2 billion right now, if we had a difficulty that big then getting rid of the cap would make much more sense.

Am I missing the point? I'd appreciate it if someone could create an informative post on why not having a cap is a good thing.



even the dollar has a hard cap

That just sums up the value of your "argument"... EDUCATE yourself people before you come out with your baseless assumptions!

Am I missing the point?

Yes, you are.

I'd appreciate it if someone could create an informative post on why not having a cap is a good thing.

I'd appreciate that before jumping to conclusions, people at least would read through the thread they are commenting on.


Why people choose DOGE? You should think about that...


@siaubas people choose DOGE,so you just can do whatever you want?look, people choose me,just be Zimbabwe,Zimbabwe is doing fine!



You need to tone it down, ignoring my argument isn't making you any better than an ignorant fool. Besides, you read something and completely ignored what was after which was correlated to it.

The dollar has several hard caps, they DON'T make new dollars every day, that would cause inflation. The federal reserve makes it as its used, not all at once; it will not work the same way for dogecoin.


I started mining in the last two weeks and I'm not a huge fan of the decision to allow continuous growth. I understand the hoarding argument but I respectfully disagree. The price of computers and TVs and such has been falling rapidly for a decade or two and people are still buying them today even though they could get more computer or TV for their money tomorrow.

I don't think this will lead me to leave the dogecoin community but it is very disappointing. I could be in favor of a 0-5k random reward (so the average is 2.5k). I wish there was some way to "vote" on this without using my feet. I'm not sure of a practical way since any attempt to restrict people to a single vote would be gamed immediately by both sides.


An inflation is a good thing but 5%.... it's really too much...
Change the block time by 90 s instead of 60 s, or make 5K block at the end instead of 10K.


if any people in charge in the some country made that decition without vote cause to bad Consequence, he should be in jail! Korea just kill.


Here's a list of all the assholes in this thread:



Since you called me out:
What is the cap for US dollar? Here is a little picture for you, US dollar supply:
Now this is NOT doge chart, but it is exactly how it is going to look:
Which one do you pick? Now go back wherever you came from, and come back once you educated yourself.


@andreis Listen kid, don't go throwing around names like that. So far the thread has been pretty intelligent and we don't need the likes of you to fudge that up.

Seriously. Look at all the people in this comment thread, let alone that Reddit post that disagree with this decision. The only people that actually like it aren't the ones we should be trusting to make the decisions like this.


@MikeSandford we could set up dogecoin address per choice
sending addresses have to be registered on a github account 1 week before the vote deadline.
it costs 350 dogecoin or ~0.5 usd per vote

All proceeds go to the official charity fund of the year.


please Upvoat if you think this is a terrible decision and may kill dogecoin.



Perhaps we can create a colored coin voting system.



Your first chart shows exactly what I'm telling you. What happened between 1989 and 1998? Almost no new money was created. Or why did it start growing exponentially in 1977? Because the demand for more money came from the people who used it. Mind you, your chart looks exactly like the bitcoin difficulty. Get the idea? Difficulty = Demand

Your second image is a nice concept, but still by the time that happens all the big whales will have a couple of billions in their wallet. You don't understand that the difficulty needs to rise a lot more before the cap can be eliminated (or rised). It's the only way to be fair to everyone, otherwise you are just giving more field for those wales to sell cheap coins to the poor, which is not how it should be.


hey, all angry guys:

it's decentralized. if you want to do a hard fork, you can. good luck with that though.



lmao stay mad nerd. go ahead and sell ur coins now we dont want u


You did not answer my question: What is the cap of US dollar which you stated that exists?
All your other points are as valid as your "USD hard cap," so I'm not even discussing them. First they made me frustrated, now I just LOL at your education.


I'm done discussing here with uneducated, ill-informed people. If you want to find out why this decision is actually great news for DOGE, just read through the whole discussion, and go through the links that have been provided. To top it off, I'm attaching an image for you to ponder. Maybe the visual will help you understand the concept under which the decision was made.
Cheers, and to the Moon!



For the last time, I said the USD has several caps as a metaphor, not making dollars everyday = cap.

I'm not gonna argue with someone who is gonna piggy ride one part of the argument and ride it to the ground. Keep living in your delusion of mighty education in speculation.


such rules very condescend wow


Fantastic decision. Now it has a realistic chance of becoming a usable currency instead of some bizarre speculative asset for early-adopting hoarders. A win for basic economics. I'm still holding mine, as I was planning to anyway.

I'd also like to thank the panic dumpers for spreading wealth to the incoming newbie shibes at discount prices. Such generosity.


wow, really, no one has the balls to say it? all is nothing if the coin is basically worthless aka infinite inflation, some guys here got too caught up in the joke, the world was generous to give doge a chance and the devs just destroyed all our work.


@nekomata3 Your work?


@GUIpsp yes, It was exactly what I said with these words, yes


Everything turns to dust one day. In the long run, we are all dead. Nothing remains.


Pulvis et umbra sumus.


@nekomata3 What did you contribute to dogecoin?


@lkn0ll you are right, you don't know much, there is no reason to a website have a dogecoin button that gives doge if the value of a doge is almost nothing, they may just keep old plain 'like' button.


To be clear, I think this decision was the best one possible at this time and needed to happen quickly, so all is well. But don't say it's for keeping the non-lost supply at a constant 100B, because no one's going to buy that. It's okay if you goofed a bit with the original announcements, you couldn't have known how big the coin would get. If you are honest about it, people won't hold it against you.

Like someone already pointed out, the amount of doge in circulation (not lost that is) will max out even under this system, because I'd say at least about 0.5% are likely to be lost per year on average so the supply is unlikely to go over 1 trillion IMHO (5B of 1tril is 0.5%). Talking about "infinite inflation" here is just nonsense.

EDIT: not to mention that getting the theoretical supply to 1 trillion would take a whopping 199 years... Many kinds of big changes will happen before that, including various catastrophes that might destroy a lot of coins and what's more likely is that the technology is going to be completely obsolete by then.


@GUIpsp its actually none of your business but its more than many ppl here just licking the devs


@nekomata3 Explain clearly and concisely how this is a bad idea.


Guys, this is becoming a trollbox. The issue is closed, and the devs are not going to look at this thread after this post, so the only thing posting here is doing is spamming. If there is another discussion to be had on the subject another issue will be raised.

Please post your opinions and venting on one of the many public forums that exist and not on this github issue. Thank you.


As the founder of quite possibly the largest non-exchange company that supports DOGE, I couldn't be happier with this decision :-). Ideally though, a reward a 5K seems to make more sense.


@flyingplatypus @moolah-ch I agree, anyway i'm out the discussion, don't say no one was there to warn you.


Don't feed the trolls. The decision has been made, and people with cool heads understand how important and beneficial it is. All others, who are too lazy to read the whole conversation and reasoning here, or just too stupid(excuse my language) to be reasoned with, will stop spamming once people stop responding to them. It's done. If you are that upset, then sell, buy BTC/LTC, and move on. DOGE now officially has a framework and is moving forward with a different idea.

This was referenced

R.I.P Dogecoin.


Oh good grief this is going to land a sh*tstorm. (not that it hasn't already)

grabs popcorn


@ummjackson do you still think it's a good idea? The price of Doge is plummeting because of this. Anyone serious about backing the currency is selling at record low prices. You have literally killed DogeCoin in less than a day.


@MadCold You're being silly, I guess you've never seen the whales play with the market before huh? It's "trading" between 131 and 161 in a single hour, going down, up to 161 again and now down. The real traders are either playing right now or sitting back and enjoying the popcorn, nothing to see here.


It's selling for less than $1.20 per 1000 now and it's still dropping. $1.18 right now.


@MadCold Grab your popcorn and buy a handful when it bottoms out. It'l recover.




(ok, I am leaving.)


Oh hey, there's a unsubscribe button on the top right of the GitHub page. Bye people, I'm abandoning this thread.


@MadCold The viability of a currency should not be determined by it's value when cashed out to BTC or USD.

As @billym2k stated, this issue is now closed. Any further comments on this issue will be deleted. If you'd like to engage in a community discussion, and hear other people's opinions on the matter please refer to this Reddit thread:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.