Jump to content

Talk:Dogecoin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

wow! nano means 10^(-9) so it's not 0.000 000 01 as is in article but 0.000 000 001 [DOGE]. please repair it in subunit section. So much thanks! 89.68.16.221 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Done --ElHef (Meep?) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-dogecoin-2013-12

New source Devilsgrace (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done br100x (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Another mention of dogecoin

http://dpk.io/blockchain only features a link to the wiki page and is only a blog but shows that dogecoin is getting some interest


I'M FAIRLY SURE THAT THE PEOPLE TRYING TO GET DOGECOIN REMOVED ARE INVESTORS IN BITCOIN OR OTHER ALT-COINS..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.109.200 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

WHOEVER HAS THIS UNDER DELETION OBVIOUSLY HAS AN AGENDA AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION OF MODERATION.

UNBELIVABLY UNPROFESSIONAL.

DOGECOIN IS A THING.

YOU CANNOT DENY THAT.


68.190.183.161 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The deletion template will not be removed until a consensus is reached at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogecoin. br100x (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: At the time he listed it for deletion, there weren't as many sources as there is now. I think he did it in good faith. 212.251.246.185 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Overview section chronology

The current overview section puts the cart before the horse as it were - the dogecoin joke and website existed before dogecoin client was made. Can somebody fix that? A salient feature of Dogecoin is that it was started as a joke, and then became real. 212.251.246.185 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Why did the deletion warning get re-posted and all the dozens of talk comments for recommendations not to delete the article removed? The community has already spoken. There is no need or reason for deletion. There is one user with an axe to grind, who keeps suggesting this article be deleted. On top of it, why is the article now locked? It makes no sense. Someone is having a power trip.


/\/\/\/\

If you don't understand how wikipedia works take time to read and educate yourself before posting.

For example: ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

/\/\/\/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.94.105 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I don't disagree that it could benefit from more editing, but deletion doesn't make sense to me. It certainly exists, however it came to exist, and it's being used and discussed and mined in the cryptocurrency community. Plus, other coins have articles with barely any sources other than documentation by the developers backing it up. If deletion has to be considered, it would be more reasonable to nominate at AfD, or even more reasonable to send it to the Article Incubator or move back into my userspace. Remember, deletion was also considered for Litecoin, and it ended up being sent into the Incubator. Look where it is now. --[citation needed] 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As a warning to newcomers posting on the discussion page, remember that while your opinions are respected, this is not a vote but rather a reach for concensus. [citation needed] 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Removed spam. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the OP - Dogecoins are a real thing and as such I'm confused as to what possible reason there could be to delete an article about it. Real people spend real time and effort to mine this new currency and I've personally seen people spend money (in form of Bitcoin and Litecoin but also paypal transfers (USD and EUR) to sell and purchase this new currency. True there is (so far) only one portal that allows official exchange but Dogecoin users are currently already trading the thing among each other (approx. 1 USD/1000 dogecoins as of the time of writing this post) --106.187.52.85 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why delete it? It's a real currency. It exists. This is not an article that is uninformative or parodied. Deleting it will actually make it harder for people to find info about Dogecoin. 124.171.112.111 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Users 106.187.52.85 and 124.171.112.111, I agree that this article should exist (or perhaps be merged into an article about altcoins) but I don't think the arguments you've made don't hold much water on Wikipedia. See WP:BIT, WP:ENN and WP:IHN. My understanding is that any argument either for or against keeping this article should be put in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, much as how arguments in a court of law should be put in terms of applicable law. For instance, perhaps there is a pro-keep argument to be made based on WP:NOTLEVEL. Perhaps a pro-merge (into an altcoin article) argument could be made based on WP:Pokémon test. — 24.72.57.68 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

http://investorplace.com/2013/12/sick-virtual-currency-bitcoin-meet-dogecoin/ <- Here is another real news source covering dogecoin.

WP:PUPPET RainbowDashite (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I can't post in the original discussion. Just thought I'd mention that dogecoin is now on the front page of The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216862/bitcoin-is-so-2013-dogecoin-is-new-crypto-currency-on-the-block <spanw style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to disagree with everyone. I don't think "dogecoins" are notable enough for an article. -- Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 02:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are countless cryptocurrencies forked from Bitcoin that either have a very small market share or experience short-term growth before fading into obscurity. The only thing DogeCoin has going for it is the fact that it's based on an Internet meme and that it has been created as a satire of Bitcoin and the community surrounding it. So no, I don't think Dogecoin is notable enough to have an article. Not yet, anyway. Matoking (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New source, not a blog, in Norwegian, though it simply mentions Dogecoin and links to The Verge piece, in an article about the recent Bitcoin crash. http://www.na24.no/article3728815.ece Nettavisen is one of the oldest online-only news media in Norway, and are owned by Egmont and A-Pressen, large newspaper and media companies. 2001:700:300:1900:F851:930E:BCB2:5DD8 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin should not have it's own article. In order to use Dogecoin, you must have a working Gentoo GNU/Linux install, which very few people have. --108.2.117.168 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong, you can use it on Windows and Mac without compiling it, and you can compile it on your Linux distro of choice, as long as you also have the packages that it depends on like SSL and Boost. 212.251.246.185 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The market capitalization for dogecoin keeps going up, so I vote for keeping the article. Nekng (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin has hit Yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/redditors-create-meme-inspired-dogecoin-currency-because-2013-175646438.html. I think that qualifies as a credible source. 132.3.29.81 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree on a vote to keep the article, over the last 24/48 hours during the Bitcoin Market Crash it was the only cryptocurrency to gain value in that time period and that is creditable to it's self through the unique spin the community behind Dogecoin has going for it, plus a notable event for it to have behind it. --101.166.56.248 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Business Insider isn't a notable source, this topic is very notable and deserving of it's own article http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-dogecoin-2013-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.19.91.37 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to add to the "keep" side, I though I'd like to note that dogecoin was briefly the most valuable cryptocurrency during the bitcoin crash: http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-coinmarketcap-update/. That fits my definition of notable, but then, I'm new here. Min6char (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the recent comments have come to consensus about keeping this article... Nekng (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is up for deletion in the first place, Dogecoin is appearing in several notable news sources. It's value went up by 400% or so since the last 24 hours. Milky0candy (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)milky0candy

Though it may seem like "just another alt-coin", it's rather unique in two different ways: it is a mockery of the cryptocurrency system, being the first to use an internet phenomenon as a "mascot"; it's growing to be very popular at a rapid pace, unlike most other alt-coins.[1]

There are other reasons which I need not list, but to be frank, requesting the deletion of such an article is both pointless due to the coin's popularity and its uniqueness in the alt-coin world. I think the arguments surrounding this have to do with the inability to measure how popular something is, or how popular something is becoming and especially the rate at which something is becoming popular (especially on the Internet).

This, however, should not be at all, since Dogecoin has been clearly growing rapidly in the past few days. I can give sources if people were to so much as to request them, but a quick Google search is all that's needed. 62.31.153.25 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow: such consensus

Now that consensus among editors has been reached, the article meets the WP:GNG with new and definitely reliable sources, and Dogecoin is heading to the moon (having not suffered greatly, if at all, in last week's cryptocurrency crash), I will be watching this article/coin with great interest. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mining Guide

Can someone add a section on how to mine dogecoins for beginners? The current article is vague on the subject, and I'm certain many readers who reach this Wiki would like to know that information. Syncmaster913n (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, details of how mining is done could be fine if covered by sources, but a guide isn't encyclopedia material. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explaining.Syncmaster913n (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

Please change "(namely it's association with the Silk Road)." to "(namely it's association with the Silk Road (marketplace)).", because the article intends to reference the online black market, rather than the historical trade route. ExcaliburHisSheath (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not "based on the 'Doge' meme"

"...based on the 'doge' Internet phenomenon, making it the first currency to be based upon an Internet meme."

It makes no sense that a cryptocurrency could be based on the 'Doge' meme (It is "based on" Litecoin, as the article states). Also, I do not think that the 'Doge' meme constitutes a 'phenomenon'. And the phrasing that it is the first currency based on an Internet meme hints that a trend may ensue, but, as I said, since it is not based on the meme, that is nonsense. It is a cryptocurrency that uses the dog character from the 'Doge' meme as its mascot. I am rephrasing as so. Mal7798 (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin is so based on the Doge meme. The history section makes it seems like this was a cryptocurrency looking for a mascot - it wasn't. First came the joke, then came the website and only THEN was it actually implemented by making a fork of Litecoin. Does anyone dispute this chronology? Then why does the article make it seem it worked in the opposite direction? The fact that it's a joke coin and is bucking the trend and amassing real following and use is what makes Dogecoin interesting ahead of other "alt. coins", so the article should mention that both in the history section and the article lede.138.124.8.19 (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The marketing is certainly based on the meme. Referring to an animal as a mascot for a company is part of the marketing and thus part of the company. GreaseballNYC (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin Storage Section

Can someone remove EasyDoge as the online wallet from the storage section of the article please, I've never heard of it before nor anyone using it in the community. The owner of this wallet, OwenVersteeg, seems to have edited the article and added it to the page himself. Secondly, there is an official web wallet for Dogecoin - DogeVault (www.dogevault.com) as seen on dogecoin.com when you click on the Browser button under START USING DOGECOIN TODAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunky6969 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm OwenVersteeg (clearly.) First of all, whether you have heard of something is not a measure of notability. Secondly, DogeVault is not an official web wallet; the only four things that are official DogeCoin resources are 1) Dogecoin-Qt 2) the official forums 3) the official blog 4) the official logos. Thirdly, I created the Storage and Transactions sections, and when I did so Dogevault.com was not linked to anywhere on dogecoin.com. When I created the section, two wallets existed - dogewallet, instadoge, and easydoge - and thus I added all three. Recently, Instadoge and Dogewallet were hacked and shut down, thus leaving only Easydoge.
As you have astutely pointed out, I created EasyDoge. I can thus inform you that it handles about six million doge per day in transactions, which further counters your accusation that it is insignificant. Additionally, EasyDoge (being ad-free) barely breaks even, and that's not even considering the time investment I put into it. When I added it to the article, it was losing money. I assure you that I did not create EasyDoge (nor add it to the article) out of any financial motivation. Although you may point out (correctly) that notability is not measured by transaction volume, transaction volume is the only factor that we can go on in this case, as neither EasyDoge nor Dogevault have received a substantial amount of coverage. (of course, Dogewallet has received substantial coverage - but it has been hacked.)
Because of these points, I am adding EasyDoge back into the article.
Finally, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you, OwenVersteeg (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Your second paragraph is entirely not relevant to if this info should be in wiki or not. (And I wouldn't call that comment "astute" since Easydoge wasn't the only wallet available, just the only one which was up and running at the time...not to mention QT, which wasn't noted.) Besides, from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." and "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. GreaseballNYC (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section and noted that DOGE go in wallets much like other cryptocurrencies. There has been no evidence of third-party verifiable notability for any of the wallets listed in this section, so functionally it's just advertising. That's not what Wikipedia is for - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello David! I'm kind of sad to see the Storage section go, especially as it's been able to live on in other pages (like the Bitcoin page.) However, I recognize your concerns about advertising and non-notability. Thus, I have re-added the Storage section without the links.
However, the way that most people learn about the GitHub page for both Dogecoin-Qt and Easydoge is usually through this Wikipedia page. (Visits for both skyrocketed when they were linked here.) For those who don't know, Github is a website for sharing code, and both Dogecoin-Qt and Easydoge are free and open-source programs. In fact, dogecoin.com doesn't even link to the GitHub page for Dogecoin-Qt, despite the fact that it *is* the official wallet. Neither project is commercially-minded, and both receive minimal donations. (At the time I am writing this, I can find about 30 dogecoin [~0.3 cents] of donations) Clearly, I do not get any financial gain from my work on both the article and the software whatsoever.
You may then argue that even though they are worthy causes, they may not belong in the article. Although neither Dogecoin-Qt nor Easydoge are notable by themselves, I think they should be re-added to the article because:
a) they are very relevant to the storage of Dogecoins (they were the first and second non-scam Dogecoin wallets, respectively)
b) neither makes any money from links in Wikipedia (both are 100% free, ad-free, open-source, and do not receive donations) and
c) Dogecoin-Qt is the official desktop wallet which all other Dogecoin wallets are based on and Easydoge is the online wallet that most other online wallets are based on. All Dogecoin transactions must flow through Dogecoin-Qt, and a substantial portion flow through EasyDoge.
Lest I be further branded as a paid shill (which is preposterous as I described above), I am not going to add these two links to the article until a consensus is reached here on the talk page. Finally, I would like to remind everyone again that I have invested countless hours of my time into improving both Dogecoin and (to a substantially lesser extent) the corresponding Wikipedia page, and have gotten nothing but hostility and accusations of paid shilling for my time. Thank you, OwenVersteeg (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you might consider stepping back from this article -or this particular subject of articles- if you are involved in any COI. Regardless of what you're earning now, Wikipedia is not your advertising platform, 'regardless' of how many people hear about your product here. You are invested in your related product and are appearing (if not actually) to be skidding close to a NNPOV. Just a suggestion. GreaseballNYC (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My "product"(s) are 100% free, ad-free, and open-source programs. (One isn't even mine.) Like Wikipedia, neither of these "products" have any goal of ever turning a profit, do not display ads, and are maintained by people that donate their time. Their sole focus is Dogecoin. EasyDoge is highly relevant to Dogecoin because it is the first non-official wallet that is not a scam and because it processes a large portion of all Dogecoin transactions. Dogecoin-Qt is highly relevant to Dogecoin because it is the underlying software that processes all Dogecoin transactions.
Considering this, and the fact that we are arguing over approximately 80 pixels of blue text on the Internet when we could be doing something better with our lives, I propose that we end this debate with the following:
a) I promise not to advertise products using this Wikipedia page. (Please note that I have made all relevant edits using my real name for maximum transparency.)
b) Links to the GitHub pages of these open-source, ad-free, 100% free projects will be reinstated in the "External Links" section.
This should alleviate any concerns that I am using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, that I have a non-neutral point of view, and that I am a paid shill. Thanks, OwenVersteeg (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You're posting links to your products; that's blatant COI. Such editing is not forbidden, but it's ill-advised.
I have removed the section again for the same reason: it's completely uncited, it's basically advertising, and the one reference link was not just to another product, but to vaporware - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with David Gerard. Your business model may be impressive or interesting (being "open-source, ad-free, 100% free") and may indeed mirror that of Wikipedia in some senses, but this has zero influence on its inclusion here. As yourself noted, your product differentiates from QT because QT is "the underlying software that processes all Dogecoin transactions," while your product is not. Your transparency is appreciated, but this isn't Facebook and that qualifies none of your points, nor does the size of the text in question. Please do not re-include these links, and please do not edit war. Thank you. GreaseballNYC (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to clear up a few things and end this discussion:
a) Easydoge no longer exists; even when it did exist, it was never a product, a business, or a moneymaking scheme - instead, it was a free service to the community that cost me money to run. In fact, the reason it no longer exists is because it was hacked; I repaid everyone affected out of my own pocket. If, at some point in this process, I'm going to be paid for my so-called shillery, please let me know.
b) I'm not affiliated with the LaunchRock reference, and I did not put it there intentionally. If you don't trust me, check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogecoin&diff=587984806&oldid=587940457
c) I have never edit warred (by WP:WAR's bright line criteria) nor would I ever think of doing so - which is why I have commented so extensively on this talk page.
d) I'm not going to include any links to either Dogecoin-Qt, Easydoge (defunct), or whatever that mobile wallet is calling itself. However, I exhort the virtual jury to include a link to Dogecoin-Qt's Github page, as Dogecoin-Qt literally is Dogecoin. When you (or anyone else for that matter) opens up the Dogecoin software, you are looking at Dogecoin-Qt. When you use a web wallet or a (potentially vaporware) mobile wallet, you are using Dogecoin-Qt to make your transaction. There is literally nothing more relevant to the Dogecoin Wikipedia page than Dogecoin-Qt.
e) I think the Storage section should be re-added for purposes of expanding the article. Of course, the vaporware mobile wallet should not be included, other sources should be cited, and the section should discuss the various wallet hacks (which are clearly notable, as they have been featured on news sources including NBC News)
f) Finally, thank you for your time. (It seems that I have accidentally written a novel.) Like I said, I will not add a link to Dogecoin-Qt, but I exhort any readers (that can) to do so. OwenVersteeg (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
While you make some interesting and valid points, I am going to ask that you please read Wikipedia's COI policy -in whole- before editing this article any further. Thank you. GreaseballNYC (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I read it in full years ago, and I re-read it at the time I posted links to Dogecoin-Qt and Easydoge. This is why I have (as WP:COI recommends) been clear about the fact that I have contributed to Dogecoin-Qt and own Easydoge. However, I think WP:SOAP is slightly more relevant here. I have tried to adhere to the guidelines set by both WP:SOAP and WP:COI, as I have said in my more wordy post above. OwenVersteeg (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Put the picture of the dog in circle on the article

Rather than pic of a client. You should. 81.157.162.39 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone has removed the Dogecoin logo, please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Much tip

Def. gave 100 DOGE to whoever was quick enough to get themselves included as the example address.

50.12.73.108 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

Hi,

Dogecoin was released on the 8th December, not the 6th of December as stated without reference. As seen here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=361813.0

Please update and add the reference. If you wish to confirm this again please message jackson.

Thanks Adrianrain (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

December 6th is the date of the genesis block. Showing this date provides symmetry with Bitcoin article which currently shows the date of its genesis block. --TXAggie (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is relevant how?

Why the hell is this stupid page on Wikipedia? Has this site lost its reputation? Since when did we start including stupid jokes from stupid sites as contenders for articles? I think there should be a review over the ruling administrator's decision. There was ton of meat puppetry involved last time and It almost seems like the admin himself was in in on it. It's ridiculous that we are allowing Wikipedia to lower its standards just to include something that won't be relevant to anyone in a months. 107.10.118.160 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We had standards? How appalling! [citation needed] 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be interesting, Mr. 107, to complain of socks, given that your only edit to Wikipedia was to this article. KonveyorBelt 06:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this clearly: you request the deletion of this article because the name and theme of the crypto-currency is silly? It's a popular crypto-currency. It deserves an article. Relevant? What do you mean by that? 62.31.153.25 (talk)
I am with the OP on here. It appears that this currency was created as a satire to mock Bitcoin and the concept of cryptocurrency in general, and was never meant to be taken seriously. It merits deletion if it doesn't mention that it is a satirical contrivance. I can't see it meeting notability standards if it was just created as a joke. Is "Scumbag Steve Coin" next? Mal7798 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This cryptocurrency product has received widespread reporting in many reliable news outlets as more than just a "satirical contrivance." Perhaps the name and marketing of Dogecoin is tickling, but the product itself is viable and noteworthy.GreaseballNYC (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If reliable sources can be found that indicate its status as a joke, such a status can be mentioned. Regardless, though, the article should stay as it's covered by plenty of notable sources. Tezero (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FinCEN

Somebody keeps removing the fact that this coin is the leading coin on the only regulated FinCEN crypto exchange. This is stupid and silly and must be stopped. Flaming wars are a waste of everyones time. Admins please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.80.4 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree this is relevant and should be kept! Mods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.61.214 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
this is developing matter, I agree to keep too, though I see why people remove it. Wording change? V-apharmd (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

End of 2014 Total Supply

I think the article could use some clarification on total supply by the end of 2014. Notice that the article mentions that the total supply will be 100 billion in the intro and 98 billion near the end. Could someone please find a proper citation to clarify this? The less confusing information presented from a perceived reliable source such as Wikipedia will further the agenda of solidification of cryptocurrencies as a whole. Also, I resent the general implication that Dogecoin was created to make a joke of cryptocurrencies. Quite the opposite, it was intended to provide a less-serious and hopefully more approachable introduction to cryptocurrencies. ArthropodOfDoom (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dogecoin Foundation

Per their website, Dogecoin also operates a not-for-profit foundation "for the purpose of spreading the use of the currency through goodwill and charitable endeavors." The Foundation is referenced in this article, but only so far as to give an example of a dogecoin address. The foundation provides assistance to medical clinics (dental clinics, AIDS service organizations), social progress causes (LGBT homeless persons, animal rescues), technical projects (development of new applications), sporting events and teams (they wholly sponsored the 2014 Winter Olympic Jamaican Bobsled Team), and other causes. I think this is all substantial enough for a separate section on the Foundation. Thoughts? http://foundation.dogecoin.com/roadmap GreaseballNYC (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That their organisation exists and does things isn't substantial enough for a separate section; but source coverage would be. As far as I can tell all the source coverage is on the Jamaican bobsled event, and therefore probably doesn't warrant a whole section, but if there was slightly broader coverage elsewhere then sure. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I see what you're saying about the source coverage. But to me, that's sort of like saying that the Girl Scout Cookies shouldn't be included in the Girl Scouts article. Dogecoin is a for-profit corporation that owns an associated not-for-profit company -the Foundation- and is included as part of their business model (like the Girl Scouts are a not-for-profit that owns a for-profit enterprise (the cookie sales)). This aspect of the company is part of the company's "doing things"...and, especially given the context of the article (that the dogecoin has been noted more for it's sense of community than others), I think it's relevant. I'll look for some outside sources. GreaseballNYC (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol

What's Dogecoin's symbol?

  • This article lists U+0044 D LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D and U+0189 Ɖ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D as the currency's symbols.
  • An anonymous user added a blurb to "D with stroke" about U+0110 Đ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE being Dogecoin's symbol.
  • "Eth" claims it's U+00D0 Ð LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH.

In the absence of any consensus about which particular Unicode character should be used, we should just call it "capital D with stroke" in this article. Eventually, if the currency sees enough adoption, maybe it'll get an entry in the Currency Symbols Unicode block anyhow.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, the official Dogecoin repository on GitHub uses a capital eth. Guess that's what it is, then. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

SuchList.com

Under the paragraph of uses for Dogecoin I think that SuchList.com would fit in. It's an effort to add real world use to Dogecoin to let people post things they wish to sell, but with prices in Dogecoin only.

I can't find any sources which talk about it, so probably not. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Much more list :

Stuffcoins http://stuffcoins.com/ - sell stuff for btc/doge like ebay

Shibesteam http://shibesteam.com/ - steam keys for dogecoins

bitcessories http://bitcessories.myshopify.com/ - buy 3D printed dog(e)tags with QR codes

Dogelist http://dogelist.com/ - craigslist for dogecoin

cryptomarketplace http://cryptomarketplace.net/ - much like cryptothrift

sheeves http://sheeves.me/drums - buy box drums

bmrf http://bmrf.me/ - ARMA DayZ server?, buy… billy passes?... with dogecoin

shopdoge http://shopdoge.com/- shop with various things, like doritos and raspberry pi devices

vapoureyes http://vapoureyes.com.au/ - homemade fuel for e-cigs

blackbirdstudioslv http://blackbirdstudioslv.com/ - art studio in Los Angeles

lubbilubbing https://www.etsy.com/shop/lubbilubbing - Wood printed photos

Cryptosextoys http://www.cryptosextoys.com/ - self explanatory


84.245.57.116 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Am I the only one that hears Jackson Palmer (the creator of dogecoin) and the character Strong Bad from Homestar Runner episode "Biz Cas Fri 1" from 2005 saying /doʊʒ/ and not saying /doʊdʒ/?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVDcOI0-gdQ

P The D (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorporated into article.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"hacking attempt"

This should be changed to "successful hack" 31.185.241.136 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Rearrange last 2 sections

The last 2 sections, Dogecoin#Currency supply and Dogecoin#Mining parameters don't seem to flow properly. Could these possibly be modified into one section or restructured in some way? Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the Future!

It appears that one reference (Dogecoin#cite_ref-3, the SMH reference for the IPA) was accessed before the article (and even Dogecoin!) was created.

It looks like it was added in this revision by a throwaway account. What should we do about it? Should we try to contact this user?

I'm surprised this wasn't noticed before. auscompgeek (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not unusual for people to use the wrong year in January on checks and the like. In any case, I verified the link and updated the access date to today.--agr (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Expect Flagging

This wikipage is going to get flagged sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.56.128 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DogeCoin not deflationary?

Surely if it runs long enough, the fixed number of annual new coins produced will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the coins in circulation every year, so at some point they will become deflationary. --91.209.142.224 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, after a certain point the number of coins produced annually will become stable, I can't remember the exact amount. Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 01:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No "criticisms" section?

I've long LOLed at Dogecoin bit thought it was time to educate myself a little. So I read this page and then notified my doctor that there's a good chance I might laugh myself to death. What a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.153.57 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 May 2014‎

Copy editing???

I don't know why Konveyor Belt added the Copy Edit tag, but it seems to me the article doesn't require any copy editing. Was he possibly trying to make fun of Doge-style grammar? Either way, I'm removing it. Please let me know if this isn't OK. Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Also, I'm seeing a lot of vandalism in the article's history. Do we think this warrants a semi-protect? Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's ok you can remove it. I put it months ago when dogecoin supporters were adding semi coherent walls of text to the article. It can go now. KonveyorBelt 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mined?

Do you mean minted? David Marjanović (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David Marjanović, Which occurrence are you referring to? Cryptocurruncy is referred to as being mined (as in mining for gold), so it's probably correct.  DiscantX 08:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh. That's bizarre. David Marjanović (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad References

In the article references, there is a reference named "Such Doge Koinu". It only suggests the unit of measurement. Should it be removed? Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with me | Contribs) 01:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Rmv'd. Thanks! ~HB Chat ♽ Contribs 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have a Wiki account, but lead dev of Dogecoin here. The unit referred to is defined in the code. Would that be enough citation? See https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/7d9a380c368a504fd3d272a27800c1dc471b51ef/src/qt/bitcoinunits.h#L32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E34B:4080:2854:395C:78E:6F6E (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Kennedy/Alex Green?

Surprised he isn't mentioned at all - he was quite a chunk of the Dogecoin story through 2014, and there's extensive press coverage to this effect - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dogecoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not "dogecoin" (instead of "Dogecoin")?

If it is "bitcoin" and not "Bitcoin", why not "dogecoin" instead of "Dogecoin"? --Mortense (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Inflation

In the infobox the label Inflation Rate ("Inflation") does not refer to text about inflation or the inflation rate. Wouldn't this more appropriately be labeled "Issuance", "Circulation" or some such? I am considering changing it myself but I haven't yet found good examples of how the "Inflation" field has been used on other currencies (crypto or otherwise) and the Infobox currency spec is no help. Please let me know if you disagree.

Edleob (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Dogecoin is deflationary. The proportion of coins emitted per unit time to the total supply is always decreasing. For Dogecoin to be inflationary the proportion of coins to total supply would need to be constant or increasing. 18.110.152.42 (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC) James Lovejoy (jamesl22)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

Add to History

A month and a half after calling bitcoin “brilliant,” the Tesla and SpaceX founder lauded DogecoinJun251994 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

 Not done. First, this needs a reliable source. Second, lauded it how? Third, this seems too trivial to mention anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Official website

Hi, I think the Official Website link in the External links section is some kind of fraudulent link: it points to s.hibe.ga instead of dogecoin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.158.240.178 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Something bizarre is going on - that's not in the text, it's the {{official website}} template. Investigating - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Looks like it was spam on Wikidata. Thanks, fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
yep! cheers :-) Why doesn't Wikidata keep history ... and what can we do about this sort of thing? - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, the history is here. We could choose to not use that template on spam-magnet pages, of course. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I couldn't see it. Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Change the picture to the official logo as seen on: The official Website: https://dogecoin.com/ The official Github: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin

The new picture: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/0b46a40ed125d7bf4b5a485b91350bc8bdc48fc8/share/pixmaps/bitcoin256.png Tom300z (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done All logos appear to be identical. 54nd60x (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit requested for 1st paragraph

Request for edit to "who decided to create a payment system that is instant, fun, and free from traditional banking fees" to make it sound less like marketing speak or an advertisement. 2601:2C6:8100:4630:B13E:94DA:C6E9:A5E1 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Add an external link to this: xxx a tool to monitor dogecoin activity in real time. Maybe, add a global "Tool" section on the article? Gsouillard (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed the link, this is possible seo spam going on at a number of articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: Wikipedia isn't for promoting other websites, nor is it an indiscriminate list of any and all links relating to a subject. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/what-dogecoin-meme-that-became-hot-new-virtual-currency-1429847
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dogecoin/Archive_1&oldid=1249260023"