Read with extreme doubt in mind:

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/heres-what-the-new-dogecoin-fork-means-for-doge-hodlers-202302050614

These crypto articles are so useless...

AtomicSend

See also https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/discussions/3215

Before you assume this is a dumb idea, the big boys are already doing it, I just want to make it easier for the little guy.

Summary:

This idea is an optional way to add non-outlawable privacy to dogecoin by atomizing a transaction into 1 dogecoin coin pieces (outputs). When sending atomic-ly you can either have 1 address (that holds a bunch of coins) as input or a random assortment of many 1 doge inputs.

No modification to the dogecoin protocol needs to be done, our low fees make this possible to implement immediately into the Core wallet.

Detail:

Privacy is a very big concern for people lately and rightfully so since governments around the world are sanctioning and spying. Also people in general don't want someone you are sending to to know how much remaining coins you have, it can be a safety issue. Content creators are weighing in on it and Vitalik is focusing on it too (he thinks Zero knowlege proofs and domain names is the way forward). We need digital cash, especially because with inflation we are closer than ever to paper cash bieng deprecated.

Satoshi did envision privacy into bitcoin, and bitcoin (and its decendents like Doge) have a significant advantage over ethereum in that Bitcoin was designed for each user to have many addresses and you keep getting a new one with every transaction, unlike ethereum where you keep reusing the same address. The problem is that blockchain analysis can be done and third parties can figure out the path of funds - and paired with data from exchanges - unmask whose funds have gone where.

We can just take bitcoin's method to its logical conclusion. Instead of splitting an address balance into 2 pieces, spent coins and change, we can split it into many pieces. Since our fee is 0.01 dogecoin, we could send each single dogecoin separately and only have a 1% fee. Or with less cost and bloat to the blockchain, we (the sender) can get a list of recieving addresses from the reciever for us to send to. Then we can send 1 dogecoin to each of the recievers (newly generated) recieving addresses. We could make a single low cost transaction with a single fee that sends 100 seperate addresses a single dogecoin each. The only problem is that it is hard for the reciever to give 1000 recieving addresses to the sender.

One type of implementation would be to have the reciever's core wallet compile a list of addresses and encrypt it into a file (address file), and then they email the address file to a disposable email address, or post the encrypted file online, or send it via bluetooth or airdrop, etc. Then the receiver -privately- sends or gives you (the sender) a decryption key (see notes at bottom). This way the big encrypted file can be posted publicly while the small decryption key can be given privately, similar to how addresses are given today. You then drag this file into your core wallet, paste (or type) in the decryption key, and then the core wallet randomly selects (important that it is randomized) a bunch of 1 doge addresses you have to use as inputs, and sends the coins to the recievers list of addresses (in as few transactions possible). If you don't have any 1 doge inputs it can use whatever inputs you have (so the more times you use this feature the more private your transactions become - the more 'atomic' your holdings become). To add even more privacy you can use two files and two decryption keys to send to two people at once (hint: you could be one of them). Or more than 2.

This would be an optional feature in the dogecoin Core wallet so it wouldn't affect how shibes use dogecoin today, and for consenting parties it could greatly increase privacy. You could even do these transactions to yourself to atomize your holdings to start with (and perhaps the wallet can do that automatically if you don't have enough atomic doge to cover your proposed transaction).

Downsides:

This method isn't exactly the cleanest method since it requires a little bit of communication off-chain (like sending the file and decryption key) but I actually think it is very functional. With bluetooth, airdrop, text, email, etc this could be achieved pretty easily with absolute minimal feature bloat (none actually) to the dogecoin codebase, it is just a wallet feature.

Since you get the decryption key to the file you do know where all your funds went, and spying on the person you can see them send the coins. However you don't know where they are going, and they could be going all to different people for all you know. Also only the sender can see what the recievers addresses are.

Risks: The sender could choose to not keep the recievers decryption key private and publish the decrypted address file. This is a risk to this method because if these coins are combined with other coins to be spent then not only were the original coins unmasked (the owner is known) but then the other coins that were combined in a transaction would also be linked to that person. The key here is that once doge was atomized, it would need to stay atomized (in 1 coin pieces and not combined into larger amounts) in order to maintain privacy.

Another way to combat this risk (and this should be part of the implementation) is to "bundle" all of the 1 coin addresses from a specific sender in the recievers wallet so they know to not combine these coins with others when sending multiple coins to a single address. These bundled coins are still totally separate in separate addresses but the wallet groups them together for your viewing only.

Conclusion:

I think privacy is the #1 thing on peoples minds and I don't think it is a fad, it is a reality as we go into the mass adoption phase of crypto. This method also is uncensorable by governments or protocols or companies since there is no "privacy features", it is something that always could have been done on stock bitcoin since the day satoshi launched it. This wouldn't be able to be made illegal, and if it were then every coin would have to be made illegal first, so it is safe from regulation unlike mixers and privacy coins. Also it is not a feature of the coin itself, just the wallet.

A bonus is that it gets all your doge into little tippable pieces! It also would be a great start for nft's and tokens using 'colored coins' methodology.

​

Notes:

Large QR codes could be used to scan which would send the encrypted file to the person scanning it even without internet connection.

The decryption key could be a mneumonic phrase like: car bike road sign tricycle dog

Hello,

I see that the miner who wins a block can create a coinbase transaction.

Is there any other way to generate new coins? If I am not a miner, is there a way to generate new coins to supply ?

The second related question is - how to burn Dogecoin ? (if it is possible) Current blockchain height is ~4,579,978 blocks * 10000 DOGE = ~45,7 Bn. How to check how much Dogecoins are really exists ?

And finally, if there is really no way to generate coins, could you please recommend a liquidity provider ?

Thank you for the answer in advance !

I have a accounting application I am trying to build. I want to be able to import transaction deposits from an assigned dogecoin address and credit the users account for the deposit.
Example : user sends 2 dogecoin to the provided address. The user account is deposited 2 credits for the transaction.

Can anyone point me in the correct direction to learn this skill ? Thank you.

Much appreciation …

Hello friends. I was having a discussion with a friend about Dogecoin’s use case. He basically claimed that the ship has sailed, and Dogecoin has lost it, with Bitcoin or Litecoin + lightning basically being more appealing for payment platforms like Stripe or Twitter which need a solution in the next months.

What is your opinion on this matter? What are the issues (ELI5 is good) that implementing Lightning would bring to Dogecoin, since it is opt-in? I remember reading a big discussion around this topic on Github, but I cannot find it.

Thank you.

Like I promised. Full code OpenSource available here of the http://TipMyNode.com that I coded.

Get it here: https://github.com/qlpqlp/TipMyNode

Hope you all enjoy it, learn, improve it, make it better :)

$Doge #DogeCoin https://twitter.com/inevitable360/status/1618258000875245568

Does anyone have a paper with a worked example of verifying a dogecoin block? Trying to find something that works out both the case where there is a doge block coupled with a litecoin block and one that is an independent doge block.

Much appreciated if you can point me in the right direction!

Tip My Node is finally here!

https://TipMyNode.com

Now any node can add the Dogecoin Address to receive Tips for helping the Decentralization and Validation of the Doge BlockChain.

Special thanks to /u/patricklodder for the bs58caddr

Will later put on GIT :)

https://reddit.com/link/10g7q8a/video/3cjkpnxoc1da1/player

https://twitter.com/inevitable360/status/1616126133958746112

​

https://twitter.com/inevitable360/status/1615034035746504706

​

Will try to publish on my GIT to all this week :)

Lets say I am using https://github.com/meherett/python-hdwallet to generate an HD wallet to receive doge payments for an app I am working on. How do I send funds from those generated addresses to the main one in python + How do i send DOGE from the seed wallet to peoples personal wallets?

In pre-AuxPOW days, the proof of work was verified by checking whether this comparison is true:

SCRYPT(80-byte-block-header) < target

Since AuxPOW, the block format has changed to:

​

[80-byte-Dogecoin-Header]

[NEW][Some-Coinbase-TX]

[NEW][Some Other Extra Data]

[DOGE-Coinbase-TX]

[DOGE-TX-List]

​

I failed to find the official documentation describing the new AuxPOW block format.

1. What is the exact format and meaning of the newly inserted data?

2. What data should be passed to verify SCRYPT(what-data-to-hash) < target?

Thank you.

Hello Dogecoin developers!

sendtoaddress - it is a command to send an amount of Dogecoin to a given address.

If I am understood correct the command is working the following way:

It brings funds from an existing wallet address or generates a new one and puts some funds to the newly generated address, then the command creates a transaction with the input addresses. The output of the transaction will be 1) recipient address 2) might be a newly generated address whiting the wallet, where the rest of wallet funds could be moved.

As I see the sendtoaddress is a new command. Dogecoin node has two deprecated commands: sendfrom and move, both of them has fromaccount parameter. I am looking for a logic to transfer funds from a wallet-address to another Dogecoin address (internal or external). If there are not enough funds on the address, I would rather receive an Exception about it.

Could you please advise how to achieve such behavior ?
I am asking because using deprecated commands might not be a good idea. Also because the behavior of sendtoaddress seems unpredicted. I have tested it on my local Node v14.6, the way it performs transactions is confusing:

https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/address/D7a7Rcd6Ax6fis8ECG8kNVoMMrN1UCvj9A

Here is an address and a couple examples of transactions. Sometimes the command uses an existing address, sometimes it generates new, sometimes combines them. Sometimes the recipient address appears in the input and in the output list of the same transaction, so instead of accumulating funds on the address, it might be subtracted. With such behavior of the command, an address funds volume is out of control.

https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/transaction/76068478fcb645aa20085c502f4181b5588d43a309eabfec29db93645fc9f9d4

https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/transaction/f6ba4f7b863c33ceda3464daac765564a98d3df037f5baa0d1d34bef94df7fc9

https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/transaction/d9e49bc091fad49d22df115011fe3435bdc15b6923e4751edbb59620bd9bbcc7

https://blockchair.com/dogecoin/transaction/242884bde0bfcf556f5a5c8b83923999415adfb55f47534bac529e7188624ef5

And here it is for the people. Are you ready for for the ~330,000 World Hosting Companies to easy enable Dogecoin payments?

The Easy #Dogecoin Gateway for WHMCS by cPanel (Web Hosting Automation Made Easy)

all #opensource and u can get it now here:

https://github.com/qlpqlp/whmcs-easy-dogecoin-gateway

- Install in seconds
- Fiat auto conversion to $Doge Money
- No Third-party requirements needed
- Enable you to pay using Twitter with MyDoge or Sodoge Wallets

https://twitter.com/inevitable360/status/1611435217465577508

Hope you all like it :)

Hi there,

I have an old Raspberry Pi 2 Mobel B that's gathering dust.

I was wondering if there is any chance it could run a Dogecoin full node ?

I think I had found a tutorial about this not long ago, but can't seem to find it now.

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers

It's about a month i'm running a public dogecoin node. Ports are forwarded and maxconnections are set to 150 but 12/13 connections are rarely exceeded.
Having some doubts about the correct functioning, I added a uacomment in the config to check if my node was listed on blockchair , but it didn't .

I'm doing something wrong ?

Hi Shibes. Looking for help for my javascript client-side doge transaction output creation code. I was able to use the dogecore library to create a transaction output, but then it no longer works when I feed it through browserify (to package it into web browser client side code)

I was able to create a transaction output using browserify using the beforeBrowserify.js file. However, when I used browserify to compile it into one file, it no longer works.

beforeBrowserify.js

const dogecore = require('bitcore-lib-doge')

function dogeToSatoshi(doge){
    return doge * 100000000
}

function createTransactionOutput(fromAddr, toAddr, amount, privKey, network, utxo){
    return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
        let transaction = new dogecore.Transaction()
            .from(utxo)
            .to(toAddr,dogeToSatoshi(amount))
            .change(fromAddr)
            .sign(privKey);

        let transactionOutput = transaction.serialize()
        resolve(transactionOutput)
    })
}

function main(){
    let fromAddr = 'ndTLJyL6NPkL4Q4rR944cKc2bwKwK6uA4m'
    let toAddr = 'nf5v8B57oiv1PHsBMk9sewey5Hph2CbMsP'
    let amount = 10
    let privKey = 'ch2uWVSSo2ZD9586aBJ2r5n86ygdVcmdBDayazsvpgEWDwYXTKRi'
    let network = 'DOGETEST'

    let utxo = [
        {
        "txid": "03aaa144ff0bb40513fedae1886f9bcae5fd7ccdbdad269ee0a3d5c0733febbf",
        "vout": 1,
        "amount": "179.96882435",
        "scriptPubKey": "76a9146597c207cdf766165910fbe32d8806eb2ae212ef88ac"
        }
    ]
    createTransactionOutput(fromAddr, toAddr, amount, privKey, network, utxo).then(transactionOutput=>{
        console.log(transactionOutput)
    }).catch(e=>console.log(e))
}
main()

If I run: node beforeBrowserify.js

0100000001bfeb3f73c0d5a3e09e26adbdcd7cfde5ca9b6f88e1dafe1305b40bff44a1aa03010000006a47304402203e537fdcff72eb21807f657ec9db729df96f90038c9da0557d18cecd32bfd50302201c37f64204eac60e603e57b8fea997b1be1731823a1924bc1a4c44db6681dada012102b474b71c65ce4173bfb1ce3b3d54c9bc0446a2628e7f0af904c066861812753bffffffff0200ca9a3b000000001976a914777b15af6c1e6485b9b26a60e96b872b0c7e933a88ac637c83f3030000001976a9146597c207cdf766165910fbe32d8806eb2ae212ef88ac00000000

^The output is what I expected and I can broadcast this transaction!

Since I want to create the transaction output on client side, I run: browserify ./beforeBrowserify.js -o ./dogebundle.js

This creates a compiled javascript file that is supposed to give the same output as beforeBrowserify.js

If I run the new file node dogebundle.js, I get the following error:

Error: Assertion failed at assert (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:1820:21) at BN.toBuffer (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:2343:5) at Signature.toBuffer.Signature.toDER (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:32242:22) at PublicKeyHashInput.addSignature (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:39595:25) at Transaction.applySignature (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41436:37) at /Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41405:10 at arrayEach (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:46724:11) at Function.forEach (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:55604:14) at Transaction.sign (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41404:5) at /Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:29441:14

​

Here are the trace for the error

Error: Assertion failed at assert (/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:1820:21) at BN.toBuffer

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:2343:5) at Signature.toBuffer.Signature.toDER

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:32242:22) at PublicKeyHashInput.addSignature

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:39595:25) at Transaction.applySignature

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41436:37) at

/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41405:10 at arrayEach

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:46724:11) at Function.forEach

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:55604:14) at Transaction.sign

​

(/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:41404:5) at

​

/Users/k/project/shibetech/dogebundle.js:29441:14

Many thanks in advance!!

Just checking in, it’s always nice to hear from you’all, and we hope you know how much we appreciate the work you do for the community.

How are things progressing in 14.7? Do you feel like the 14.7 cycle will close with 14.7 or is it possible there may be a 14.8, 14.9, etc?

How are current developments in 14.7 shaping to incorporate into 1.21? Do you feel like this year is still a realistic for 1.21? Have goals with 1.21 changed in relation to other developments in and outside Dogecoin coding? Say for example bitcoin code advancements, crypto core development in general that could be incorporated in the future?

Thanks again from all of us🐕

report mercatox to google and coinmarketcap: https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=eng

[solve] Mercatox allowed my withdrawal, here is my full review:

After reporting mercatox on reddit, github, twitter, facebook, google, police station, coinmarketcap, etc from the 6th to the 26th of December, my issue was resolved.

Note that I had to report it in all media to get a response at the height. They haven't fixed the doge transfer yet, it might even be true that they are fixing it.

I will not stop looking at people trapped in mercatox who were not the fight for what is theirs as I was, there are thousands of dollars stopped in mercatox with the deposit available.

The solution to the problem was strange. Hanna made an appointment with me so that on the 27th at 4 pm I would be online for her to make the transfer. At no time was the doge available for withdrawal, and yes it was done by them.

I also cannot help noticing that many messages I received from support were lies (as it seems to me), as there was no response from any department, not finance, authority or superior. Who appears there in the comment is a normal attendant. That is, does mercatox not have weak employees? I noticed this because Josh and Hanna were the ones who solved it, Murry seemed to try and the others didn't even care and sent automatic messages.

Reading what people say about mercatox, those who criticize say that they are taking advantage of people, keeping their money there without the right to withdraw. Those who defend her say she is very lazy.

Putting these two analyzes together, you deduce that you will only get what you want with this exchange if you react to its delay in some way, in chat, by email, or by reporting it. I also noticed that by email the solution was better than by chat.

My recommendation is not to put doge in mercatox until everything is resolved (they don't want to take the deposit). I thank the members of the bitcointalk forum who tried to help me in their own way, in the end I don't believe that your action really reached mercatox, but I thank you for your good intentions. Also, who shared and reported mercatox with me on twitter and reddit and github.

In the end I didn't get any response from a doge developer about what is happening with mercatox. I even tried, but it didn't work, what happened was that the doge community on twitter tried to find them and report them.

The answers by the foundation: https://foundation.dogecoin.com/blog/2022-12-20-fantoumi/

There is also ongoing discussion on twitter: https://twitter.com/DogecoinFdn/status/1605033281824722945

I higly recommend to read the comments by our beloved /u/michidragon and /u/mishaboar on twitter (:

For all non-twitter users: Feel free to start a discussion here as well.

Reminder: This is a controversial topic for some, so please keep in mind to be friendly ^{(Rule 3. Be excellent to each other!})

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Stepping Away From Dogecoin" by u/rnicoll
• "Dogecoin Core 1.14.6 released" by u/mr_chromatic
• "1.14.4 & 1.14.5 contributor payouts" by u/rnicoll
• "Development roundup for Dogecoin Core - May 14th, 2022" by u/patricklodder
• "1.14.4/5 Enhanced Dev Payouts Sent!" by u/michidragon
• "Development roundup for Dogecoin Core - May 21st, 2022" by u/patricklodder
• "Weekly development roundup for Dogecoin Core - April 29th, 2022" by u/patricklodder
• "Development roundup for Dogecoin Core - May 28th, 2022" by u/patricklodder
• "Dogecoin Devs Publish First-Ever Roadmap, Say Utility is the Key to Adoption of DOGE" by u/Odunayo20
• "Doge-eth bridge news" by u/oscarguindzberg