Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

diegobasch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#81

Post by mwsherman »

bitops wrote: post #56
rmc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a techie who's been following bitcoin and disapproves of their libertarian ideology, I like the Dogecoin attitude. It's all a joke. It's like it's not serious. It's like people know that you're not going to replace all the money.

Funny enough, that attitude may make it more successful in the long term. History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along.

Lots of truth to this from a brand perspective, but the underlying technology of Dogecoin is pretty serious, it just happened to be deployed in a playful way. Not unlike the way that gaming technology or 4chan’s infrastructure is serious.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#83

Post by Torgo »

earlz wrote: post #14

I got into Doge when it was about a week old, stupidly bought like 1000 DOGE for 0.001BTC (there wasn't yet an exchange), which was way overvalued at the time. Then I setup cpuminer on my computer and let it run for a week and watched as 10,000 DOGE was added to my wallet. And then my mining pool shutdown. Just setup a mining pool account again this week and now my projections are looking more like 1000 DOGE every co…

I threw a couple of spare video cards at it and generated about 15K of doge over MLK weekend. Use a GPU.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#84

Post by singularityyy »

jaekwon wrote: post #47
petertodd wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was nothing hard to anticipate about the dogecoin fork; literally hours after the commit making it possible was made I heard from Litecoin/Bitcoin developer Warren Togami among others that the Dogecoin devs were idiots who had just set themselves up for a fork. Similarly the micro-transactions flood was something people had predicted would happen well in advance. To outsiders this stuff may seem mysterious and…

I patched dogecoin to fix the transaction limit to prevent dust. What I am realizing is that dogecoin, by virtue of being not so serious, is gaining more developer mindshare who want to experiment and learn. That's what makes it fun, and what gives it potential.

Exactly. Bitcoin is too big to experiment on, and the arguments of the hardcore-Bitcoin folks who hate altcoins are getting more and more ridiculous.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#85

Post by [deleted] »

flatline wrote: post #2

I believe the problem they describe is both real and somewhat frivolous at the same time. The minimum transaction amount that does not incur fees is currently .01 BTC, so I think there is an actual issue for micro-transactions as things stand now. However, the smallest indivisible unit of a bitcoin is 1 satoshi (1e-8 BTC), and if the bitcoin fanatics are to be believed and 1 BTC will be worth anywhere from $40,000 to…

[deleted]

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#86

Post by frandroid »

VanillaCafe wrote: post #76
bitops wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, that attitude may make it more successful in the long term. History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along.

> History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along. Examples, please.

G.W. Bush.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#87

Post by bitops »

VanillaCafe wrote: post #76
bitops wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, that attitude may make it more successful in the long term. History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along.

> History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along. Examples, please.

Well...there's that one operating system out there that got pretty popular after some guy in Finland posted it online. Name escapes me at the moment, though.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#88

Post by aresant »

citricsquid wrote: post #63
aresant wrote: post #57

Just a random comment on the whole "community raised 25k" In fact one self identifying bitcoin speculator contributed $20k of that after moving some bc>doge all to drive speculative in doge through the assured free press (and wrote about his intent on reddit).

That's interesting! Do you have a link to hand? Thanks!

Sure

http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1virfc/lets_send_t...

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#89

Post by smtddr »

oafitupa wrote: post #50
smtddr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, okay. So I take it you're a millionaire because when you first heard of bitcoin you were like "That's a great idea!!!" and minded/purchased millions of them. Or if you missed that train, you got onboard Litecoin when it was less than $5... or Namecoin when it was less than a dollar but shot up to $15 during November 2013....

Not a millionaire in USD because even though I did hear about Bitcoin very early and I did think "That's a great idea!!!" (I was lucky enough to have studied a bit of cryptography just before hearing about Bitcoin), I wasn't able to buy much because I live in a country that suffers one of the very problems Bitcoin was created to fight (capital controls). Using my laptop to mine was out of question, losing it would ha…

Good for you. Enjoy your money.

Re: Dogecoin and the Appeal of Small Numbers

#90

Post by theklub »

croddin wrote: post #42

Instead of trying to set the value of each denomination of a currency to a certain amount why don't we use SI prefixes for them? Making very large and small numbers more relatable is what SI prefixes are designed for. Instead of talking about $DOGE 700 = $BTC 0.001, why not say $DOGE 700 = m$BTC 1? This solution would work even if the currency drifted further from the value of the dollar, just start using u$BTC, n$BT…

This is happening on many exchanges already.
Post reply on HN