Your best bet is posting in a DOGE or DEV forum.

Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?

Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic.

Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0

Well here we are, more than a month later. What were we expecting to happen?

Usually, if the addresses are the same, then the private keys are the same. Import the DEV private key into the DOGE wallet and you should be able to access the coins. If not, it may be just a format difference. If not that, then the coins are probaby lost.

The real advantage of Bitcoin is that it is much more known than the other cryptocurrencies. That makes it more useful, even if it lacks features.

Bitcoin has two advantages over credit cards:

1. The transaction is finalized quickly. A merchant is never sure if a credit card transaction will be reversed. Bitcoin protects merchants from fraud.
2. Transactions are cheaper (potentially). Merchants can give you a lower price than if you pay by credit card.

For example, the precious metals dealer APMEX accepts Bitcoin. If you pay by Bitcoin, you get the cash price and it is shipped immediately. If you use a credit card, you pay extra.

In my opinion, the biggest threat of centralization is the popular practice of letting custodians, such as Coinbase and major exchanges, hold your coins. These entities control your coins more than any miners ever will.

There is no need to panic. Cryptocurrencies may not be as decentralized as you had hoped, but they can still succeed.

A person holding 1 million BTC has no more control over Bitcoin than a person holding 1 BTC, except for the fact that they could potentially kill it (and lose all of their money in the process).

Anyone with access to cheap electricity can mine profitably regardless of the size of their operation. Having a large operation does help because of economies of scale, but it is not clear that there is a problem.

Furthermore, the largest miners are mining pools, and they are not a threat to decentralization. Mining pools may consist of hundreds or thousands of participants who can join or leave at will. We have seen in the past that when a mining pool becomes a problem, the participants will leave and the pool will disappear.

The manipulation of markets by whales is a myth. Nobody has ever produced any evidence of this occurring in any meaningful way. It's a great story, but so far it is fiction and not fact.

Furthermore, pump-and-dumps are not done by whales (it would be far too risky). That belief is a myth perpetuated by a lack of understanding of how a pump-and-dump works. Pump-and-dumps are done by scammers running "pump groups". Who needs a whale when you have a thousands of victims following your "signals"?

Regardless, manipulation of markets has no effect on decentralization, except that manipulation could be used to kill a coin.

I think this is a real issue. A currency depends on the network effect to maintain its utility. If people choose centralized currencies over decentralized currencies, then the decentralized currencies will struggle to survive.

Let's add some perspective. Here are two examples of losses due to dollar scams.

Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme lost $65 billion.
Enron was a $63 billion company that went bankrupt due to fraudulent activities.

In short. scams involving cryptocurrencies are nothing compared to scams involving dollars.

Unfortunately, Hal had the same misconception that many people have, thinking that the total amount of money represents the total amount of wealth. That is not true. Money is not backed by anything, not even gold.

Here are some examples of how it is wrong:
If I find a gold nugget, there is no money anywhere that represents the value of that nugget.
If I build a house, there is no money anywhere that represents the value of that house.
If I buy a used car, then you might say that the value of that car is represented by the money that I paid, but then if the seller buys another car with that same money, which car is represented by that money?

In short, I don't think it is valid to equate the value of a currency (or even all currencies) to the total wealth of the world.

Investment is not use. It is the opposite of use, in fact. When you invest, you don't use your bitcoins for a long time and then you sell them.

If you think bitcoins are useful, then tell me how you use them.


I am skeptical. Can you please point me to your source that shows that Bitcoin reduces unemployment?

It is very annoying to see a flood of scam tweets following a tweet by a well-known person.

This is another good example of why you should never say anything about your Bitcoin holdings.

I sold all my bitcoins a long time ago.

That article is just one big error. Don't bother reading it. The author is clearly confused (and so is Reuters, by the way).

The authors that write for Cointelegraph are horrible. There are so many things wrong with that article. Even the title has problems.

The title says "unlikely credit card fraud" but says nothing about why it might be "unlikely" -- probably because the author doesn't have a clue.


Well, did the author actually ask for a confirmation? I think that is "unlikely".


Obviously, the author knows nothing about how credit cards work.

When somebody uses a credit card, the funds are not credited until many days later. And even if the funds are credited, they are debited if the transaction is canceled later. Escrow is not helpful in the credit card case.

A decreasing block reward indirectly causes the difficulty to decrease, not increase.

You didn't read the article. Someone paid him with a stolen credit card.

Merit is given to you by people that read your posts and responses. A person can give you merit for any reason, but most will give you merit for a post or response that they like.

I give merit to informative posts and responses that are helpful and correct, contain information that is new and relevant, and that required some work or research to write. I give merit to opinions that are thoughtful, interesting, and novel. However, I don't give merit to members of signature campaigns.

It is called a "physical bitcoin". It is not practical to use them as currency because they are expensive to manufacture, so they are made for collectors mostly.

Nobody knows.