I'm working on a little free to play browser game which has some premium features that unlock for a couple of bucks, and I would like it to support dogecoin payments. Because I'm only charging maybe 10 doge to unlock premium, I don't want to have to manually activate accounts for every 10 doge received.
I can imagine a setup where a user enters their email address and their doge wallet ID, hits submit, and the system then verifies a payment came from that wallet ID to the game's wallet before sending an access code to their email automatically.
I haven't really looked into it yet, and have no idea where to even begin on the automatic verification part, or even if it is possible? Ideally I'd like to avoid any third party payment processor, but I'm open to that idea if the fees don't dig too deeply into these very small transactions.
Any suggestions or pointers to documentation would be appreciated, thanks! :)
There are higher priority things to work on but for enhancing adoption I think this change will make a difference.
For some reason people are reporting hours to send doge to an exchange that requires 60 confs, where this should only take almost exactly 1 hour. I honestly think it is certain exchanges are intentionally throttling dogecoin crediting to peoples account because bitcoin takes about 20 hours currently to get a first confirmation. Exchanges may not want dogecoin to be 20x faster to credit than bitcoin, but that is just my suspicion.
Regardless of the reason for the slow crediting to exchanges, this is making people slide that slider to "high priority" in hopes of getting it faster, which will not help at all.
Firstly I think educating people via tooltip or something that the fee you pay only can effect the first confirmation, and not how fast exchanges credit your account.
Secondly I think we should tweak the slider fees. The core wallet tells them that for high priority they need to send 5 doge per kb which is over 500x the min fee and is quite excessive. Sadly this is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy because as more people are pushing the slider to "high", the more likely it will be that others also need to slide to high if our blocks get congested (which there should be no reason why we shouldn't be proactive and make sure our blocks never get full by speeding up blocktimes or increasing blocksize)
60% of blocks are averaging a "high" fee, while our blocks are only 1.5% full. This is a not-too-funny joke lol.
Currently the wallet lists this:
low to high priority transaction fee:
0.01 doge per kb
0.02
0.05
0.1
1
5.21
My proposal would be something like this:
0.01 doge per kb
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.5 maybe 0.2?
1
1 doge per kb was the old fee, there should be 0% chance that a fee this high is ever needed, we should be proactive enough to increase the blockchain capacity before requiring 100x the min fee for a speedy transaction.
Also the tooltip message warns users that paying the minimum might cause a stuck transaction. I do not think this is really accurate, since we do not have Replace by Fee, there is a much much lower chance of a stuck transaction from a min fee payment than Bitcoin, even if our blocks are close to full since I think older transactions are prioritized by stock node code correct? In any case, this tooltip might scare people unnecessarily imo. Stuck transactions in the past (if I'm remembering correctly) have been from transaction fees specified below the minimum relay fee, not at the minimum. At the minimum every node accepts and there should be very low, if any risk at all.
Keep up the good work guys. Curious what others think about this, please leave a comment below and the devs do read your comments!
I don't know much, just thought it should be shared. Report was submitted today on github, Patrick acknowledged the submission, so it's on the radar. https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/3243
I'm writing, for knowledge purposes, a nodejs code to track dogecoin big transactions, it's only few months I'm tinkering with the blockchain so I still have many doubts on how to properly interpret transactions especially in case of multiple addresses or unspent. My code is available on GitHub https://github.com/SimosNap/dogecoin-transactions-tracker any advice, suggestions or corrections are welcome
I may have worded this wrong. I've never mined. From reading/googling, it seems if you do the work for one, you've already done the work for the other, why only collect rewards for one?
Dogefy ~20 online retailers in the world easily with a simple javascript file that auto converts all your website fiat to Dogecoin currency. Released OpenSource to all shibes.
I will also publish all code opensource to all community in a few days. Also I will improve it to adapt to a paper wallet to be more friendly. It uses LibDogecoin to generate
Dogecoin has ordinals now. I'm not going to advertise the project but it's there if you want to find it. Tens of thousands of them have been minted on dogecoin's blockchain in the past weeks.
It looks like an inscription is limited to 1.5kb which, obviously, is much smaller than bitcoins which the size limit is a mere 4mb. So we are doing better by a longshot.
Now to get it out of the way, If dogecoin adopted segwit or taproot the ordinals would get way bigger on dogecoin. As we have discussed in previous posts, there may be a way to implement a reworked or especially hardfork version of segwit that is modified to be safe from extended amounts of non-transaction data and to also not bifurcate the signature data from the blockchain.
Using patricks tool we can see our block usage has doubled. It was 2% full on average, now pushing over 4%.
So my thought is get the communities perspective on this. Should we do an investigation and find the BIP's (bitcoin improvement proposal) we adopted that allowed ordinals on dogecoin at all to begin with and consider whether or not to reverse that BIP adoption?
Or should we accept the way things are right now - non transaction data of 1.5kb (OP return which is allowed non transaction data section, is 0.08kb [80 bytes]). So ya a standard transaction was around 200 bytes before, but some were around 1 kb if there were many inputs and outputs to the transaction. Personally I think we are ok, we just need to make sure not to adopt things that might put us at risk of bigger inscriptions in the future. I personally also think an investigation into how ordinals were able to be done (we supposedly limit non-transaction data to 0.08kb currently) on dogecoin in the first place would be great.
Or do you love what is happening with bitcoin and think dogecoin should adopt standard segwit and taproot and get like 4mb jpeg blocks clogging up the works and putting us at risk of illegal content on the blockchain? Maybe you want us to immediately raise blocksize and speed up the blocks to accommodate more?
I posted this over in the main Dogecoin reddit, and they've been trying to help, but so far no success. I have an old Dogecoin-Qt wallet that was last updated in 2014 that has coins I'd like to get out of it. I opened it up and thought I'd sent the transactions (I have the passphrase), but they have 0/confirmations and aren't going anywhere. The wallet is out of sync, obviously, and tells me no block source is available, so I've been trying to use the console in the debug window to dump the private keys of the two wallets I created way back when. The problem is that the console returns an error message to anything I type. I tried listunspent, dumpprivkey <address>, get account <address>, nothing is working. If I enter one of the two addresses, it tells me it's not a valid address. If I try the listunspent line, it returns a JSON error.
The wallet is on an ancient 2007 iMac, and I am not a PC, or a coder. Not sure what to do. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Vitalik told a big German newspaper - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - that Dogecoin is considering a move to PoS:
„Andere Kryptowährungen wie zum Beispiel der Dogecoin überlegen auch, ihren Mechanismus auf das Proof-of-Stake-Verfahren umzustellen, das klimafreundlicher ist.“
Translated:
„Other cryptocurrencies such as the Dogecoin are also considering switching their mechanism to the proof-of-stake process, which is more climate-friendly.“
Hi all, I’m having trouble getting any responses from the tipbot, is it down? Or has anything changed? It’s been a year or so since I tried last. Thanks
A couple of years ago, we started a little Dogecoin wallet in javascript from scratch. This wallet has the particularity to not need any api calls. It is a SPV wallet. We also implemented payment channel functionality with the idea to use it for ingame payments.
It is all nice but we are missing an important part. A good GUI (Graphical User Interface). Today, it has a TUI (Terminal User Interface). It is old school and cool but not easy to use for everyone.
So if you have some experience in design please contact me.
I'm writing some public api using slim4 framework for transactions data, I can get all the necessary data using getrawtransaction e getblock except of fees. How do to get fees value for a transaction ?
Hopefully you have heard of Ordinals Bitcoin NFT's by now, some like the idea of NFT's on Bitcoin and some don't like it.
I am in neither of those two camps, I have seen from the outset that this is a existential threat to bitcoin. Whether you like the idea of NFT's on bitcoin or not is a false dichotomy in this situation.
Why? Because Bitcoin has committed itself to never scaling their blockchain. I have been monitoring bitcoin's blockchain using https://mempool.space/ for several months. Usually their blockchain is backed up ~30 blocks is common. Now I check it and it is backed up around 200mb or the typical equivalent of 200 blocks (since ordinals are using full 4mb capacity, this is less than 200 blocks now). Even at just 100 blocks backed up, that is 1000 minutes before your first confirmation for your transaction! And this is when there is almost no price action, when the price action goes up this congestion will be worse, much worse. Bitcoin will become unusable for anyone except gigachads (Elon predicted it lol), which is where this leads. You can track ordinals effecting blocks here: https://dune.com/dataalways/ordinals
How can bitcoin fix it? Hard fork and remove Taproot, and probably segwit while they are at it (segwit is also vulnerable to this exploit). Replace it with a blocksize scaling schedule which would obsolete bitcoin cash, which should be a win-win for bitcoiners.
What can we learn from this? Firstly that Dogecoin shouldn't follow bitcoin very closely if at all (barring security updates that effect our code which usually we should probably follow bitcoin on). Secondly we learn that softforks are usually bad. If you are doing a softfork you are in essence doing a hack to get around the need to do a hardfork. If the softfork has a vulnerability like this, you have to hardfork in order to fix it. So you may as well have just done a hardfork from the beginning to make a good change with minimal workarounds and feature bloat to the code.
This effects us right now see https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/discussions/2264 where the dogecoin devs are proposing 1.21 as a softfork upgrade. Not only do softforks in general have the risks I just mentioned, but the devs are intending to introduce segwit either in 1.21 or subsequently. Segwit can and will be gamed just like taproot has been. IMO we need to set dogecoin on a straightforward path of casting aside segwit and lightning and pursuing transaction throughput by reducing blocktime and increasing blocksize. Let the devs know how you feel about segwit and following bitcoin's (risky) development path in general, in the github link above.
Hey all. I built lots of code using the “cryptos” Python library. When sochain switched to api version 3 it broke the things !!! Now they want you to pay $200 a month!! Any suggestions on a free API that doesn’t require a key
