Ok, in good faith, here is my reasoning: Yes, I said doggie would be stopped if it was a "threat". And as another proof of work blockchain why is it less of a threat than bitcoin? The first thing that comes to mind is the difference between 800+ exahashes and 3 petahashes. Bitcoin, at this point, cannot be stopped regardless of who wishes it away and their potential resources. Game theory says any entity that could would better use those resources to play along and be rewarded for doing so.
At this point, in terms of hashrate, a single medium sized mining operation could easily just co-opt doggie coin chain and make up their own ledger. No one does that because 1. it would make it even more worthless and 2. there is no incentive to make it worthless because it poses no threat to any existing system of value. We know that is the case because when bitcoin was just a few petahashes, it COULD have been taken over just as easily but wasn't... and not because it wasn't a threat , rather because no one PERCEIVED it as a threat since it was first and new. Very few knew what they were looking at in that time.
However, since it was first we now know the potential of a secure decentralized ledger backed by proof of work to begin to upend institutional monetary systems. So if any other potential threat were to come along it would be squashed quickly because now many who care know, know what they are looking at. One can deduce thus that no one actually thinks doggie coin has legs to become a threat, not because they are unable to perceive it, but because they can perceive it clearly and still think its not.
To the point of an infinite supply. It doesn't bother me that doggie coin has chosen that, but it is a decision that is clearly economically unsound. A finite supply that cannot be manipulated is THE innovation in bitcoin. An infinite inflating supply is not something people would trend to as a proxy for their absolute finite time and energy. So it doesn't really attract new miners even because investing in a melting ice cube might help short term velocity of money, but does not provide a foundation for a stable money.
I could go on, and I think that suffices for my point of view. Consider it or not, that's as much energy as i've got for this thread. Be well.
Matthew_Honeyheart / Honeyheart
npub1e5…3sqdt
2025-04-16 22:36:20
in reply to nevent1q…jhl8
Author Public Key
npub1e5qxqlkj0knt09hkvkspkqr7x0epq7xg2nrp8q0vepncyejxpxms83sqdtPublished at
2025-04-16 22:36:20Event JSON
{
"id": "0f1406ca698a0b955dd37a04330d4e096897ed4664604428377bb667b2dbc28c",
"pubkey": "cd00607ed27da6b796f665a01b007e33f21078c854c61381ecc86782664609b7",
"created_at": 1744842980,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"82066fc63f4372cbc792132168af5f22d7d9f4a751f970c5fa49437e1065a307",
"ws://192.168.18.7:7777",
"root",
"cd00607ed27da6b796f665a01b007e33f21078c854c61381ecc86782664609b7"
],
[
"e",
"58d0b3e3b791ca6cfa6f463107bbd0e72b09713876eb45cf922715f4a54e2a43",
"ws://192.168.18.7:7777",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd00607ed27da6b796f665a01b007e33f21078c854c61381ecc86782664609b7"
],
[
"p",
"7776c32d4b1d1e8bf2a96babeb43ad9ade157bd363d89b87fb63e6f145558888"
],
[
"p",
"cd00607ed27da6b796f665a01b007e33f21078c854c61381ecc86782664609b7",
"ws://192.168.18.7:7777"
],
[
"r",
"wss://premium.primal.net/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.primal.net/"
]
],
"content": "Ok, in good faith, here is my reasoning: Yes, I said doggie would be stopped if it was a \"threat\". And as another proof of work blockchain why is it less of a threat than bitcoin? The first thing that comes to mind is the difference between 800+ exahashes and 3 petahashes. Bitcoin, at this point, cannot be stopped regardless of who wishes it away and their potential resources. Game theory says any entity that could would better use those resources to play along and be rewarded for doing so.\n\nAt this point, in terms of hashrate, a single medium sized mining operation could easily just co-opt doggie coin chain and make up their own ledger. No one does that because 1. it would make it even more worthless and 2. there is no incentive to make it worthless because it poses no threat to any existing system of value. We know that is the case because when bitcoin was just a few petahashes, it COULD have been taken over just as easily but wasn't... and not because it wasn't a threat , rather because no one PERCEIVED it as a threat since it was first and new. Very few knew what they were looking at in that time.\n\nHowever, since it was first we now know the potential of a secure decentralized ledger backed by proof of work to begin to upend institutional monetary systems. So if any other potential threat were to come along it would be squashed quickly because now many who care know, know what they are looking at. One can deduce thus that no one actually thinks doggie coin has legs to become a threat, not because they are unable to perceive it, but because they can perceive it clearly and still think its not. \n\nTo the point of an infinite supply. It doesn't bother me that doggie coin has chosen that, but it is a decision that is clearly economically unsound. A finite supply that cannot be manipulated is THE innovation in bitcoin. An infinite inflating supply is not something people would trend to as a proxy for their absolute finite time and energy. So it doesn't really attract new miners even because investing in a melting ice cube might help short term velocity of money, but does not provide a foundation for a stable money.\n\nI could go on, and I think that suffices for my point of view. Consider it or not, that's as much energy as i've got for this thread. Be well.",
"sig": "650098e186b59e03e53c85af4df580be0f8bf8be44e43d1e39f6a39ec46480f11501d8aa04f576dc2bbad4d7bd6f84caa67fcf615588e5e2be7df9ff602328a2"
}