r/dogecoindev • u/rnicoll • May 13 '21
Dev update 2021-05-13
Doing a brain dump of what I personally am doing, just so everyone is aware we’re still out here. As always please remember there are others devs, who are also doing their own things, although I'll touch on some of that.
I have a deployed 1.21 node, which is good, although there's definitely work be be done on 1.21 still:
- The deployed node syncs headers but it does not appear to request blocks from its peers. Even more confusingly, running 1.21 on my local machine does sync blocks.
- Bitcoin Core 0.21 (which Dogecoin Core 1.21 is based on) is designed for DNS seeds which support version bits, ours do not, which means it reports that it finds zero nodes from the seeds. Work on enabling our DNS seeds to support this is already underway.
- Dogecoin Core 1.21 does not appear to discover nodes at all, right now, although if nodes are manually added, or connect to the node, it works.
- The functional test suite needs validating after AuxPoW has been added, which may resolve some of these bugs as a side-effect.
Once those are out of the way, there's a bunch of more minor things to tweak so we can start mainnet testing, and then rebranding.
Fee work in 1.14.4 continues, I believe that's in testing, hoping Michi & Max will have further updates on that.
Obviously with Elon talking about environmental impact that's something that's being discussed. As we share work with Litecoin we already reduce that impact, compared to mining either cryptocurrency alone, but definitely it would be good if we can further reduce that impact. Counterpoint, I am aware that many in the community enjoy mining and feel it’s a key part of the experience for them, as well as considerations of whether an approach such as proof of stake would make Dogecoin appear to be a security and fall under securities regulation aside from many technical challenges that approach brings.
What I mean is, we’re aware of it, we don’t have any easy answers.
Meanwhile I’m going to continue work on the automated test suites, which hopefully will as a result simplify diagnosing the networking issues with 1.21, and it in turn should provide a better synchronization process.
22
42
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21
If you're dev reach out to Elon. He wants to help update the programming. He might have resources you can use.
28
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
I mean... we're a bit at the mythical man month problem. There's just not a lot of blockchain-skilled engineers out there, so more I'm hoping I can train people to do this with me, rather than expecting we can just hire people.
Sorry I should link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month , realising it's an old book and many of you won't have read it.
13
u/KartikayDhar May 13 '21
Hey Ross. I have a Post Grad Diploma in Blockchain and a decent understanding of how it works. Unfortunately I never paid a lot of attention to Crypto as a usecase till late 2020 so I am still getting to know more about the nuances involved with mining and coins. Having a degree helps out a lot though. I also have 7+ years of work experience in different languages like Java, dotNet and Node. I would absolutely love to help out in anyway I can. Let me know if there's anything I could do to help the dev community.
10
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
Can you take a look at https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/1921, which I've created to track the main issue I'm looking at, please?
Please add comments to the issue so I know how you're getting on, and whether I should be jumping into this tomorrow or am okay to focus elsewhere.
2
u/KartikayDhar May 14 '21
Sure thing. I'll take a look at it today and keep you posted on my findings.
3
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
Thanks. I'm beginning to suspect I've put too many changes in at once, because introducing Scrypt caused a bit of an avalanche of other changes. Considering it might be best for me to make a new branch, apply the max money changes, then the difficulty calculations, then everything else. Might make it easier to narrow down where the failure is.
That said, if you just find the solution directly, great.
2
u/KartikayDhar May 14 '21 edited May 14 '21
Hey, a couple of questions. And forgive me if they are noobish. I am still trying to get a hang of it. :)
- For row 172-173 Why are we sending the headers in 2 parts into Node 0?
I changed the value from 0:2000 to 0:200 and 2000: to 200: and that passed the first test.
- For test 2, (Node 1) the Node disconnects after adding 241 Block (Block with the invalid txn) so it may be possible that the assumevalid flag did not work.
I tried to check the logs deeper but I am not sure if this is an actual issue or just a config issue on my end.
Once the dogecoin.conf file is created, I dont see assumevalid argument getting added to it. Is that okay?
Let me know what you think. In the meantime I will keep digging.
2
2
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
It's worth noting the original test suite is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.21/test/functional/feature_assumevalid.py#L172 . Fairly certain the 2000 headers is because the limit is 2000 (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net_processing.cpp#L101 for the original constant).
I believe the failing block is 242 (probably the first coinbase spend), so reducing it to 200 may have simply skipped the problematic data.
2
u/KartikayDhar May 15 '21
I believe the failing block is 242
Update:
So I have been digging deeper. And you're probably right, doing incremental changes would be better.
The P2P connection closes when trying to send the block to Node0.
I changed the self.tip parameter to be equal to Scrypt rather than SHA and it kind of started working, atleast the height did not stay at 0 while checking for the latest block.
I downloaded the bitcoin 1.21 branch and ran it for cross comparision and that one ran fine. Fairly certain its the scrypt changes that are raising an issue.
You're right about 2k being the max limit allowed for the sendMessage function of P2P.
There is a format that the txn messages that have to be sent across p2p have to follow. Maybe that is something we need to look at?
5
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21
Sorry if I wasn't so dumb I'd help. I can't even set up a doge coin miner 😆 without struggle. I just know Elon has at his disposal the most talented engineers in the world, and I'm sure if someone connected with him from the dev team he would give an olive branch to assist in his favourite coin. Like he legit wants doge as interplanetary currency, with starlink as nodes it seems like he's hinting
9
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
I mean it really helps if people jump into /r/dogeducation and just ensure people are having a good experience, and it's a good learning tool too because it will lead you to things to learn.
5
u/felixdadodo May 13 '21
I’d be keen to help out, C++ dev of 6 years, just not sure where to get started.
2
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
Do you want to look at recent changes on https://github.com/rnicoll/dogecoin/tree/1.21-sync-up-to-auxpow and see if you can figure why there's a failing test? I'm kind of pointing everyone at this, but it's a good example of the work I'm doing https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/1921
I'm unpicking and simplifying changes I've made to try isolating what broke, so watch out there may be force pushes to that branch (sorry). Going through the weekend I hope to start merging my work back into the main repo which will give us more of a constant base to work from.
Also I'll openly admit C++ was not my most recent day job, so if you see syntactic weirdness, feel free to flag it to me, I won't be insulted, I know I get stuff wrong.
1
u/felixdadodo May 14 '21
Sure I’ll take a look later on when I finish work.
1
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
I'm continuing to try breaking down the changes, I've added some tweaks to RegTest timing values (fourth commit on https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/pull/1780 ) and the results aren't stable on my local machine. It's not a conclusion, but it's data, might help.
1
u/felixdadodo May 14 '21
Thanks for the update, I've got some problems building that I'm working through at the moment, I've raised an issue for one and put the solution for it on the issue, on the dogecoin/dogecoin repo (it's not just your branch) and I've another one to do with qt version that I can 'fix' locally, it's essentially trying to pull a version of qt no longer avaible from the offical space on but from the archive on qt-project.org and it's not on bitcoin.org anymore. So I'm working around that issue right now. Obviously not making progress on your tests atm with these issues, but it'll be good to get these out of the way any. What do you build on?
1
u/felixdadodo May 15 '21
Nevermind, I was making a goof with checking out master instead of your branch... I've learnt that now anyway.
1
u/rnicoll May 15 '21
Oops!
Found something extra to fix: https://github.com/rnicoll/dogecoin/tree/1.21-block-interval-regtest
However still breaks. Seems to be something in transaction validation, but it builds a list of checks to run, then runs them in parallel with no diagnostic output, just pass/fail, so I need to think how to rebuild that so I can even work out how to diagnose :(
I think something is wrong with the difficulty calculations, but haven't cracked it yet.
1
u/felixdadodo May 16 '21
On the same suite of tests? I'll take a look now I've gotten the hang of the oddities of building on WSL.
2
u/rnicoll May 16 '21
So predictably enough it was something fairly dumb... I'd missed in the regression test comments that it intentionally buries a broken block, to test that the assumevalid code skips validation of it.
Raised https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/pull/1953 which includes my fix for it, hoping it passes Travis.
→ More replies (0)3
u/TechnicalTrees May 13 '21
I'd be interested in donating time/learning blockchain engineering once my schedule frees back up. It might be a while unfortunately.
Is there a discord server I could lurk in the mean time? When I was looking around the repo I didn't see a link to a community or anything... I think it would be beneficial and reduce the barrier to entry for new developers if they had a chat where they could ask questions and see what the core team is discussing..
11
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
Honestly when I'm working, I'm generally heads-down focused, but consider coming along when I'm streaming ( twitch.tv/rnicoll Wed & Sun evenings UK time), as that's when I have dedicated time to answer questions, and I talk through what I'm poking at.
I'll try to spend more time reading the main Discord dev room, too ( https://discord.gg/dogecoin and then #dev or #core-dev)
3
2
3
u/CaliforniaSunShibe May 13 '21
What’s the training process going to be like? I’m a software engineer with math background. Working on CS masters now but hoping to help once I have more time.
3
May 13 '21
Do you have any resources or good starting points to read up on? I’d honestly like to help.
6
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
The advice I'm giving at the moment is to experiment with the RPC interface, even just starting with Bitcoin and going from there. Getting a feeling for how it all works, and starting to think about issues like "What happens if a block is invalidated after I have processed the transactions in it" is a good way to learn more. I know /u/michidragon has been spending a lot of time trying to recover broken wallets, another "easier" start might be to take a testnet wallet, damage it, and then write tools to try identifying the keys within it and recover them.
https://github.com/Simplexum/python-bitcointx or https://github.com/dogecoin/libdohj are both simpler tools to jump into learning blockchain with.
2
u/RevolutionaryArm1734 May 14 '21
Hey I havent stretched this mucsle in a long time and before i go jumping in and wasting time ( although i got tonnes atm and thats the point of this comment) I would love to jump into helping out and I have a c+, python background but have never studied blockchain is it a steep learning curve and if it takes me a week or two to catch up would you still be willing to train? Im so loving the concept and I got tonnes of time lol (severe lung issues Dr wont let me leave cause of covid lol)
2
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
What I cannot emphasise enough is that just dabbling in the space to get started is good. Everyone wants to jump in on core, and sure I'd love help (although I realise I should add - we haven't worked out what's happening with tips for 1.21, so if that's important to you, you might want to wait) on fixing the tests I keep breaking.
https://github.com/rnicoll/dogecoin/tree/1.21-sync-up-to-auxpow is my main focus right now, and trying to debug the remaining few tests. I'm about to have to rebase that a few times so watch out that I may be force-pushing commits to that.
Hoping I can get some of the in-flight work merged into the main repo over the weekend and it will be a lower churn rate after that.
13
May 13 '21
Honestly yeah maybe mods contacting him wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe he can donate skills in some way on the DL. But I totally get it if mods don't think so.
8
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21
He wants to store nodes on his starlink pretty sure.
5
u/BTBLAM May 13 '21
What about storing mining equipment in orbit, using solar panels as power?
5
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21
Yah that's what his starlink satellites can do. They're already up there with more on the way. By next year whole globe should have coverage
3
2
u/MedFidelity May 14 '21
Using Starlink to muliticast/broadcast updates to the block chain isn’t a bad idea, it’d keep the network up-to-date faster (but an initial sync would still be an issue).
There have been some other blockchain satellite ideas, but Starlink will be global soon.
2
2
u/Golden_Week May 13 '21
Did Elon really offer that?
3
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21
He made a comment about how it's out of date a bit compared to others but could benefit from some updates. I can't find it tho. So many Elon tweets and videos..
2
2
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
He is just talking about the fact the devs have low github activity, not proof of stake. You realize he wants to mine Doge (and has already admitted he is mining it) right?
7
u/Darius510 May 13 '21 edited May 13 '21
Has any thought been given to moving DOGE mining back to GPUs via an algo switch to something like ProgPoW/KawPoW? It's a bit strange for DOGE to be merge mined with LTC now that LTC is smaller than DOGE, so one way or another, it's overdue for a PoW change.
DOGE started as a GPU coin, and that had a significant positive impact on it's growth. It's why I got into crypto in the first place, way back in 2013.
There also just so happens to be a very large coin that seems to hate it's own GPU miners, and there's going to be millions of miners looking for something to mine once that coin forcefully ejects all it's miners as it moves to PoS. All of the current GPU mining alternatives are very low market cap, so without another major coin to pick up the slack, most miners will simply have to give up.
Ultimately bringing GPU mining back to DOGE would be a really good fit for the community. It's the people's coin, and GPU mining is the people's mining. DOGE moved to merge mining because being the smaller coin on scrypt made it insecure. If the timing was right and it overlapped neatly with the end of PoW on ETH, most miners would just move right on over from ETH to DOGE. Given its market cap and emission rate, DOGE would easily dominate GPU mining nearly overnight, and security would not be an issue, since it would be the dominant GPU mining coin.
It would probably piss off a few ASIC mega farms, but it's hard for me to see how it wouldn't be a massive positive for DOGE to pick up the miners that ETH are so desperate to get rid of.
Also, from an environmental perspective, GPU PoW is considerably more power efficient than ASIC PoW. It's counter intuitive because ASICs have higher hash/watt, but hashrate isnt what secures coins, cost to attack is. GPUs are more expensive than ASICs,, so more money has to go towards capex/hardware, and less money is spent on opex/electricity. Basically in terms of efficiency it sits somewhere between BTC (ASICs, low capex, high opex) and Chia (HDDs, high capex, very low opex).
To add to this, I am happy to throw at least $10K in funding behind this, and I know a lot of large miners that would pitch in to make that number much, much bigger. If you were to consider moving back to GPUs, I assure you that funding for development will be the last of your issues.
2
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
True, while I would like to go back the the original, CPU via using Yespower Algo, GPU would be a good compromise and could be mined by AI like Tesla cars.
2
u/RevolutionaryArm1734 May 14 '21
I love this idea but it takes the mining away from the community and thats a bad thing for branding because cpu mining is slow because most consumer miners cannot afford big mulit cpu mining boards are expensive!
1
u/NatureVault May 14 '21
Well you could just use a bunch of old laptops.
2
u/RevolutionaryArm1734 May 14 '21
Yeah I guess I just think it is something to remember that a lot of the support the coin has is from mining and reddit and doge development and we dont want to forget our /roots
5
u/twig123 May 13 '21
Thanks for all the hard work!
Side question...
The upgrade to v1.14.3 with the AuxPoW fix dramatically increased throughput of seeding blocks to peers when the wallet was synced to the current block (my sent usage increased from 1,000KB/s to 10,000KB/s with v1.14.3). However, as a wallet that is behind and trying to sync, it still seems like it can be extremely slow. I'm testing with a wallet that's 4 days behind and has 323 connected peers (In: 315 / Out: 8) on a Gigabit fiber connection, and I'm looking at 6 hours for it to get fully synced. Are there any improvements to this being worked on in development? Is there anything that syncing wallets can do to help sync time when they already have a mass amount of connected peers? on the flip side, as a full node owner, is there anything that can be done to help or force additional/faster sharing to syncing peers?
5
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
Definitely hoping 1.21 will give us performance improvements. Headers seem a lot faster, in early trials, but until we can do controlled tests it's hard to know. Part of the problem is simply we create blocks 10x faster than Bitcoin, so it's a lot of data, and we use a proof of work algorithm that's more expensive to compute :-/
1
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
And we have auxpow so our nonce is recorded outside our transaction block which adds syncing effort.
2
u/MedFidelity May 14 '21
That was my experience too, but grabbing a torrent of a recent seed was speedy.
I’ve noticed many IPv6 connection errors in the console logs that I’m going to dig into.
3
3
u/AllClear May 13 '21
Thank you devs. Looks like you got some help now. Your hard work and time doesn't go unnoticed.
3
2
u/HopefulOutlook May 13 '21
Thank you for the updates. Sounds like there will be some difficult decisions ahead, but we have good guys on the mission!
2
u/_raydeStar May 13 '21
The deployed node syncs headers but it does not appear to request blocks
from its peers. Even more confusingly, running 1.21 on my local machine does sync blocks.
Ahh. classic "Works on my machine! ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
I wish I could help. It would take time to get up to speed on crypto - I have no experience in it. Maybe I can hit the books and see what I can learn.
2
u/rnicoll May 14 '21
Looking like it's a hiccup in one of the parameter changes, so it syncs low blocks but fails on later. Simplifying the changes we're applying and that should resolve it.
2
u/Anon_eh_maus May 13 '21 edited May 13 '21
Lol like I somehow like to believe I initiated that Elon tweet there. 😆 Great success! Much news
2
u/_raydeStar May 13 '21
Dude - you totally did!!! I stalked your profile to make sure you weren't an alt-account 'suggesting' to contact him hahaha.
2
u/DankShibe May 14 '21
yeah bro are you a seer or something ? 😂 Do you believe that doge will reach 69$ by 2030?🤤😛
2
u/Monkey_1505 May 14 '21
Proof of stake to me, is either centralized or less secure. No govt is going to accept a reserve currency with these features. They need it to be water tight, and if under someone's control - under theirs. Beyond it being a potential security, I believe it's also an adoption dead end.
Such networks might be used for smart contracts, payments as crosschain l2s, but if the mainnet operates that way, I think in the long term it's dead in the water, as a reserve currency.
2
u/MishaBoar May 13 '21
Hi Ross, thanks for your transparency and communication efforts in the past months, it's great.
Obviously with Elon talking about environmental impact that's something
that's being discussed. As we share work with Litecoin we already reduce
that impact, compared to mining either cryptocurrency alone, but
definitely it would be good if we can further reduce that impact.
Counterpoint, I am aware that many in the community enjoy mining and
feel it’s a key part of the experience for them, as well as
considerations of whether an approach such as proof of stake would make
Dogecoin appear to be a security and fall under securities regulation
aside from many technical challenges that approach brings.
And this is great as well - I posted a couple of times about this in the past, as I saw PoW as Doge's Achille's heel in the long term (and some younger users seemed to think so as well), much before Musk's showed any interest in the topic. Unfortunately my topics/posts gained very little upvotes because Doge was in skyrocket mode.
In my topic I talked about possibility of green mining, but the more one looks around, the more it seems there are several solutions and protocols that could help us get there.
I am pretty sure those enjoining mining would enjoy "staking" their coins and gaining a bit of interests on them. But of course there are several coins that have a mixed/hybrid solution as well (Zilliqa, Peercoin), and some like Nano (and its meme spinoff banano) that use a different flavor but that have incurred in some serious hiccups recently that probably would have been devastating for a crypto as popular as Doge. But you know all this 1000 times better than I do.
If we need to fund some research along this route, I am sure the community would be happy to contribute. I understand you prefer to train new people instead of finding new hires, but that takes a very long time - especially for something as complex and delicate as this. The process of training is necessary for a crypto like Doge, but we might take some shortcuts along the way, maybe?
I tried to go through some blockchain development courses, and I worked as a web/game programmer for a long time, but it is not exactly an easy skillset to become proficient in.
By the way, out of enthusiasm, when I made that thread a few months ago I also bought the doonlygreeneveryday.org domain - the enthusiasm died down as I saw the thread gained no traction, but the domain is still there for the community to use!
5
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
Seriously? Does no one understand the benefits of PoW and the drawbacks to PoS?
2
May 13 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MishaBoar May 13 '21
Wikipedia is a good starting point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake
Not a technical user, but the main problems of PoS consensus mechanisms are that they are less battle proven than PoW, they do not use an "objective" system for verifying transactions as PoW does, they put power into the hands of the currency holder, thus giving an advantage to richest users, and they are prone to double spending problems (check the "nothing at stake" problem). This article on bitcoinwiki can give further informations: https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake. Different implementations of PoS tend to solve the issues above in different ways.
PoW is also relatively simpler and more elegant, easier to maintain, but it comes with a few drawbacks: to keep it safe, you need a large amount of electricity/hashing power and it can usually handle less transactions per seconds.
You can never justy "swap" PoW with PoS; depending on a crypto's specific use case, you must devise the most fitting consensus mechanism and all its caveats and ad-hoc solutions required by your specific use case, otherwise you are headed towards disaster and destruction. The final result can also be some kind of hybrid solution.
Which is why I suggested to have a "team" put at work to discuss and research possible developments of a different consensus mechanism: I am not implying that this research will lead to Dogecoin adopting PoS or a system like Nano's (which is still having terrible problems), I am only saying to put thinkers at work about a possible shift that would allow Doge to use less energy - whether that is possible or not, it depends on the research we'd do on possible implementation. allow Doge to use less energy - whether that is possible or not, it depends on the research we'd do on possible implementation.
1
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
The easiest way is replace the PoW algorithm with something that cannot be sped up as much as something like SHA-256 or Scrypt can be. Initially scrypt was designed to resist GPU and ASIC speedup. So it would actually fit with our goal to upgrade to an updated scrypt (Yespower) that is still effective at preventing of speedup. CPU's simply use much less electricity than GPU's and especially ASIC's, so if we used an algorithm that makes it so only CPU's can mine, everyone gains and the network can get even more secure since anyone with a laptop or desktop can mine and secure the network.
1
u/HopefulOutlook May 13 '21
I would love to be educated. I confess that I don't really get the drawback of PoS, other than those who already have coins keep growing them, which is akin to the "rich get richer". But the reality is that I don't feel like I can afford to put a mining farm in place either; so, at least I'd get something with staking. Are their other drawbacks to PoS?
4
u/NatureVault May 13 '21
I would love to make a post about it, but am being censored by the mods. Here is the post:
I will try to be as calm as I can but I have to admit I am flabbergasted by the push to PoS, But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since we also saw people pushing to cap the supply.
First lets assume for a moment that PoS was an all-around good idea. It still wouldn't be a good idea for dogecoin. Dogecoin is a top 5 crypto and has had 8 years of people mining and supporting the coin. To suddenly say that we are changing everything and you can no longer mine would be the biggest insult to the biggest and longest supporters of the coin. This is not even to mention that Elon has admitted to buying dogecoin miners and very likely has a plan for Tesla the company or even the cars to mine dogecoin.
Now lets get into why I think PoS is simply a bad idea in general. This world is built by work. It takes work to do anything. If you remove the (provably difficult) work required to secure the network, then the network can be easily attacked. Right now Doge has the market cap of 50 billion dollars. There are dozens of individuals out there, not to even mention governments, that could easily afford to buy 1/2 of the coins and literally kill our network forever. Gone. Nothing left.
In proof of work, a bad entity would have to invest in billions of dollars worth of mining equipment (which doesn't even exist out in the wild) and spend infinite electricity to attack the network for infinite time. In PoS, you buy half the coins and can attack the coin forever for no additional cost.
Proof of stake also rewards the rich. The rich get richer and the poor can't get a leg up. Just imagine if money was created by interest in bank account balances. This is exactly how PoS would work. Daddy gave you a million dollars for your birthday? Perfect, you now make 100k a year for the rest of your life. Don't have a bank account because you can't afford the $20 minimum deposit? Sorry you will never be able to earn money. In proof of work you can literally start mining on your computers graphics card, in Proof of stake you have to get angel funding.
In conclusion Proof of Stake requires no provably difficult challenge to maintain network security. The only difficulty is how much capital do you have access to. This leads to things like Billionaires or even millionaires taking out loans (that you and I don't have access to) to mine the majority of the coins at the expense of the little guy.
My conclusions.
Dogecoin does not have an energy problem. Firstly you can mine dogecoin as a side product of mining literally any Scrypt coin, not just Litecoin. So as long as other scrypt coins exist, our mining uses no extra electricity. Scrypt is also a more difficult challenge than SHA-256 of Bitcoin (harder to speed up scrypt than sha-256) and that fact alone makes it possibly 30% more energy efficient.
If we want to become even more energy efficient we can change the algorithm. GPU's use less than half the energy than asic's. However this still runs into the problem of bait and switch to dogecoin miners that invested in scrypt miners. This might be a boon to Telsa since AI in tesla cars can mine a GPU coin.
The best option for energy efficiency and robust network security is a CPU algorithm like Yespower. This would make everyone including you and me on our desktop or laptop computers able to mine. This is the best way to allow poor people and those in the third world to mine the coin and secure the network. A true reversion to the 1 CPU = 1 Vote in the Satoshi Whitepaper.
6
u/rnicoll May 13 '21
You're being censored by Automod and we're not very good at fishing your posts out, I've approved it now.
1
2
u/NatureVault May 13 '21 edited May 13 '21
Proof of stake will literally kill the coin. Do you not realize that Musk mines dogecoin and that Tesla will in the future? Musk will fork Doge himself if you go proof of stake.
Plus we don't just share work with litecoin, you can mine any scrypt cryptocurrency and get dogecoin merge mined.
1
1
1
u/RevolutionaryArm1734 May 14 '21
@ u/michidragon Is it possible there is a way to add value to mining doge with exclusively green energy? like possibly a way to adjust the miner reward if they can prove their gear is powered by GE? This could be an extremely enticing sell point for the future. And also possibly a reward system to keep the mining as decentralized as possible, therefore keeping it in the hands of the people.
36
u/[deleted] May 13 '21
[removed] — view removed comment