Dogecoin is an example how your story about your product could make it or break it. Dogecoin is not yet another digital currency and this has nothing to do with it's technology.
I'd also say it demonstrates the importance of identifying a niche. Nobody cares about generic AltCoin #842012.
Positioning themselves as a tipping currency was a smart move. The internet has badly needed a way to reward people with very small amounts of money for years. That's one of the things I really like about doge, personally.
You can't send really small amount of Bitcoin, there is a cutoff to stop you "spamming" the network unless you also send a fee.
Also the mission statement of Bitcoin and Dogecoin are different.
Bitcoin is looking to replace world currency transactions by a secure peer-to-peer distributed network resistant to external attack through utilization of blah blah blah snooze.
People are dismissing this too easily. Looks matter, a lot. Tipping is an emotional connection - it's not a logical transaction. The tipper is making a contribution to something he likes. Giving 0.000000005 BTC gives the tipper and tippee an emotional message that his work isn't worth much. 100 DOGE makes it seem less petty. It's like giving a chocolate bar as a gift instead of $2 - you will get far more favorable reactions to the chocolate bar than a 'useless' $2.
Just to be clear, Doge tipping is mostly not happening on the blockchain. These transactions are only transacting on the chain when people cash in or out of a tipbot.
If you are being sarcastic, I am missing it. If in the end of the day both can buy the same thing, why should I care how big or how small the numbers are?
Nope. I am sorry. i don't buy it. There is no anchoring involved when the new currency is still not used to determine prices. People that still want to use dogecoin as actual money will have to do the conversion anyway. the large number will mean nothing when they cash out and realize that their MILLIONS of DOGE won't be enough to buy them a sandwich. Ask people in Zimbabwe if they care about carrying thousands of dollars in their wallets. they dont. such zeroes, many numbers, no actual purchasing power.
Had bitcoin started with the satoshi as its base unit (i.e. what is called a satoshi was just called a bitcoin) then we might not be having this discussion.
I addition to the psychology of large numbers, there is a technical reason - the Doge network confirms transactions faster. (Arguably not a necessary feature for tipping, but again, the aesthetics are more pleasing.)
Bitcoin is terrifying to someone who has read stories of hacks and theft for a few years as an outsider, so "The one that no one takes seriously yet" is comforting.
bitcoin also takes itself very, very seriously which raises the bar for entry by normal people. Why would you use dogecoin when you could have all the fedora wearing neckbeard libertarian preaching?
I wonder if this is the typical left doesn't know what the right does in regards to Apple's "personalized" cryptocurrency policy, so someone approved it without realizing the top executives don't want it there, and they might request for a ban later - or Apple has an incredibly inconsistent policy regarding cryptocurrencies. Neither one makes much sense.
What seems to be consistant is that they don't actually care about cryptocurrencies. They care about not copping the blame when third party payment platforms cause problems for their users.
If there was some sort of security hole in a bitcoin iOS app that caused the owner to loose money, Apple will recieve some of the blame and negative press. Apple disallowing these apps is their way of mitigating that damage.
The app is new but the title is sensationally banking on that yesterday's story. Apple has only banned wallet apps, not every app related to cryptocurrencies.
I know. Obviously a lot of people didn't get that (too busy grabbing their pitchforks) which is why this story has probably made it to the front page today.
These handheld devices will someday become so close to us that it will be difficult to tell where the device ends and where the human begins. Someday large segments of the population are going to gladly submit some control of their mind to 3rd parties who know which programs and products are good for you, and which you are unauthorized to use.
I'll decide what I want to run and what not to run on MY computer, thanks. I guess it comes down to whether you want to be a pet in a safe walled garden with a pre-programmed experience, or a free agent out there with terrors to freeze your soul and delights to satiate your every desire.
> Someday large segments of the population are going to
> gladly submit some control of their mind to 3rd parties
> who know which programs and products are good for you, and
> which you are unauthorized to use.
This is already in place and has nothing to do with technology. Just observe carefully all the stuff people get offended about, or call racist, or call sexist—usually there is little to no thinking involved, just conditioned response, sometimes reaching absurdity (like insisting that black person from UK should be called african-american).
My impression is that in these cases people don't really have moral compass or deep understanding why something is right and something is wrong—this all was "outsourced" somewhere and all left are just learned reponses to stimuli, with extremely crude pattern recognition.
And yes, to some degree this applies to those inceasingly speaking about walled-gardens.
This is a false dichotomy if there ever was one. I love my iOS devices, they just work, I can generally trust the software not to pwn my device, and really there's a lot of nice software to choose from. I also love hacking on the Linux kernel and gaming on Windows. I don't see such a threat of the walled gardens - it is one type of thing and it has its problems but it's not the only thing out there and I see no indication that it will be any time soon.
What you describe is already the world we live in. The comforts of digital feudalism vs. the freedom (and danger) of being a techno-ronin is gradually converging towards a serious civil rights issue.
In a different political climate, anti-trust legislation would be warranted (Apple deserves it more than Microsoft ever did), but these days, lobbyists have regulatory capture down to an exact science. The open source crowd (and I don't mean Google; they merely shift their evil server-side) needs to continue competing with with the fiefdoms on user experience, because that's what's going to sway real users and influence the market, not lofty ambitions about freedom.
Well, if you literally mean cash in hand, you're going to have to do a bit of work. Much like with other crypto coins, you can sometimes find a local person who will do an in-person exchange[1]. Otherwise, you can use something like the dogemarket subreddit[2] to do an exchange using Paypal, Google Wallet, etc. Another option is to link a bank account to a service like Vault of Satoshi[3] and make a USD/Doge trade there.
Curious as to why you didn't jut say "you can directly buy Dogecoin for $100 USD on a website called Vault of Satoshi." Instead, you opened up your longwinded response with "doing a bit of work" and other mumbo jumbo, leaving the direct answer as a marginal note at the end (just "another option" in your words.)
Edit: the most challenging part would be going to a bank to deposit the physical Franklin, if the end user didn't have a fiat in an account already.
The options are listed in order of increasing difficulty. Vault of Satoshi requires verification of users, which means sending them personal information and waiting for it to be processed. Once you've jumped through all the hoops, it's easy. Finding someone to meet you at the coffee shop and exchange the $100 in person is potentially the quickest and easiest, assuming such persons exist in your area. The PayPal/Wallet option is somewhere in the middle.
All that having been said, _I'm_ a bit curious why you felt the need to bitch about someone giving a detailed answer. I wonder at the intellect that labels four sentences as long-winded.
Both are using Bootstrap with what appears to be a theme similar to the Bootstrap's own site. Looks like less of a case of one copying the other, and more of both copying the default bootstrap site.
They don't both use it. Liberio made their theme first, and "Black Tie Co" ripped it off and called it Flatty and had the balls to put it under a CC license.
Just because something is accurate doesn't mean it's not misleading. That it may need clarification would seem to be an indicator that it is in fact misleading.
The reason why this is worthy news is that you made it so. Hence, think twice unless you are Dogecoin lover, and if you are, mission accomplished. Many times things come from behind and win, watch the moon closely this time.
>MYĐOGE is read-only. It can be used to monitor your Dogecoin at a glance, watch the markets or read about Dogecoin.
So it can't be used for transfers. It still doesn't look like Apple is approving apps that send *coins