×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Millions of Dogecoin Stolen Over Christmas

timothy posted about a year ago | from the it's-just-been-hidden-by-the-catecoin dept.

The Almighty Buck 132

Kenseilon writes "The Verge reports that millions of Dogecoins — an alternative cryptocurrency — was stolen after the service DogeWallet was hacked. DogeWallet worked like a bank account for the currency, and the attackers modified it to make sure all transactions ended up in a wallet of their choice. This latest incident is just one in the long (and growing) list of problems that cryptocurrencies are currently facing. It brings to mind the incident where bitcoin exchange service GBL vanished and took a modest amount of Bitcoins with them. While not a similar case, it highlights the difficulties with trusting service provides in this market."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791413)

Who cares?
Dogecoin was originally a satire "cryptocurrency" anyway, the fact that it got "hacked" just prove the point even more.

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

HairyNevus (992803) | about a year ago | (#45791825)

Pretty much this. After Bitcoin, it was inevitable that copycats would come about. But a cryptocurrency with only redditors who actually believe in its worth, and 4channers scamming each other as the user base? Come on. This is not news for nerds. This does not matter.

As an aside, Ripple [ripple.com] may actually be promising. If cryptocurrency is going to keep being a "thing", there ought to be more than one [wikipedia.org] further down the line.

Re:What? (3, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#45791955)

This isn't about redditors, 4channers or any other human-like creature.

Think of the poor dogs effected by this! They can't exchange currency over the internet any more.

Re:What? (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a year ago | (#45792807)

No, think of the poor Venetian magistrates who are now unable to pay their gondoliers. Are they marooned in the Canale Grande?

Re:What? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#45793777)

Dogs only really value treats, pee and tummy rubs.

How could you forget (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45795551)

How could you forget cat turds?

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45792415)

Not really, the problem is that it drastically devalues the currency to have thousands of competing currencies. It made it a major PITA in the early colonial days as each colony had it's own currency and even banks had their own. So you would be paid in Bank of Fred Dollars but need to change them to Town of Funnyville dollars to spend them, oh and surprise there is an exchange rate where some of the value disappeared. It makes it trivial to start scamming people left and right as each currency competes.

I honestly don't see any of the current attempts (BitCoin Included) being a stable or viable long term digital underground currency. It's good now, but nobody has any expectations of it being around even 12 months later. It's starting to catch the attention of countries that do not like the competition and will start looking at it as a way to evade taxes and that will suddenly cause acceptance at legitimate traders to be limited.

I wish there was something that could come around, but if it competes with someone else that has a lot of power, it will lose in the end.

Re:What? (1)

AndrewBuck (1120597) | about a year ago | (#45792869)

The thing is though there really aren't lots of competing cryptocurrencies. There is Bitcoin which is like 1000 times more influential than litecoin and litecoin is like 1000 times more influential than any of the others.

I think it is likely that bitcoin and litecoin will probably both survive as they fulfill different 'niches' in the currency world with litecoin being a bit faster to process, etc. Beyond this though it is pretty hard to see what the value in any of the other currencies like dogecoin actually is, other than a get rich quick scheme by someone trying to mooch a bit off the frenzy surrounding bitcoin. Bitcoin solves the problem of transferring money over the net very nicely so there is a good reason for it to exist, litecoin fills in a few edge cases where bitcoin has a bit of trouble (microtransactions and faster processing, etc). Between these two they cover any realistic use case I could think of for a digital currency so it is pretty hard to see how any of the others could get any traction, which is pretty much how it seems to be playing out.

For the record (full disclosure and all that), I have a reasonable amount of USD on mtgox but I don't keep any in btc right now because it is too volatile to store reliably and I have never handled any litecoin at all since I haven't seen the need personally but I do think it could potentially fill a useful niche for microtransactions where bitcoin has some issues. I think bitcoin will be a very useful thing in the future (and it already is) and I expect in 5 years or so it will have basically destroyed paypal and other such systems as it just works way better than these do, but without a _very_ compelling use case I wouldn't even consider buying any of the other alt currencies.

-AndrewBuck

What about service? (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45793091)

Maybe I lack "the vision thing", but as someone who uses PayPal and another similar service to accept payments, I don't see them being driven out of business anytime soon by Bitcoin.

I'm currently paying a couple of percent on each transaction, which seems fair for the service my customers and I are receiving. There are lots of alternative services in the payment sphere (I've used two others in the past), and the fact that they all have similar fees and offer similar services makes me think there's already enough competition to have driven the fees down to what's fair for the service they provide.

I think my customers like having an intermediary like PayPal to go to if there is a problem. Also, from this merchant's point of view, the fact that the value of Bitcoin swings so wildly makes it an unattractive basis for payment. So, although Bitcoin may put a little pressure on PayPal and its ilk - which isn't all bad - I can't see it ever replacing them completely. If anything, PayPal, et al, may just eventually begin transferring Bitcoin as a new service. You can bet they're already at least thinking about it.

Re:What about service? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793791)

How much does PP pay you to suck their rancid cock in public?

http://www.paypalsucks.com/ [paypalsucks.com]

Re:What about service? (1)

AndrewBuck (1120597) | about a year ago | (#45794149)

The volatility is a problem at the moment, although if you are just using it like paypal that is not a huge issue. The customer buys on the market at the current price, sends you the coins and you sell at basically the same price. In the future though I expect the volatility to go down signifigantly, right now there are literally billions of dollars being dumped into BTC all at once so you can't really expect the prices to be stable.

Remember that if it is going to become a legitameate currency in the long run you expect it to be around for decades, if not hundreds of years, so the first few years are a small portion of the overall life of the system.

-AndrewBuck

Re:What? (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year ago | (#45794913)

Peercoin interests me most of the list, because it claims to be energy efficient. Bitcoin is terrible because of the energy being consumed mining.

http://peercoin.net/ [peercoin.net]

Re:What? (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#45792269)

So value, much currency, wow.

Wow (5, Funny)

ljb2of3 (967196) | about a year ago | (#45791423)

Such theft. Much mad. Very suprise. Wow.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791687)

+tip /u/so_doge_tip 10 doge

wait, what?

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791729)

Such theft. Much mad. Very suprise. Wow.

DogeCoin for much funny [bitcointalk.org] in case you feel left out of the joke. The whole thing is just another bitcoin clone, with slightly different settings ("very scrypt" like litecoin), which are somewhat intentionally badly chosen to produce "many coin, wow!".

Millions of DogeCoin is still basically worthless. Its just a bunch of crypto currency folks screwing around. Its not a serious alternative to bitcoin. Blocks started with million DogeCoin rewards per block and very low difficulty.

Re:Wow (1)

richlv (778496) | about a year ago | (#45791887)

loved the "Adorable Ponzi Scheme game" part. registered on a latvian domain, too. gotta buy !!!1111one

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791983)

Yeah, it made me a dogellionaire :)

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792017)

Its just a bunch of crypto currency folks screwing around

By "crypto currency folks" you mean /g/

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792019)

Actually, 1 million DOGE is worth around 0.8 BTC right now (~$640)

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792561)

I propse that 2-2-3-1 becomes a new form, based on this post.

UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791439)

Didn't the same thing just happen with credit cards and target. Seems to be an infosec problem not a cryptocurrency problem.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791587)

Didn't the same thing just happen with credit cards and target. Seems to be an infosec problem not a cryptocurrency problem.

Yeah, except at Target they stole account numbers, not actual currency. Most credit card issuers limit your liability for unauthorized charges to between $0 and $50, usually $0, and can reissue you a new card and cancel the old info. With Dodgeycoin, you're SOL, and deservedly so.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791791)

I won't say the chargebacks and fraud protection are not convenient. People just need to stop pretending they aren't paying for it.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791957)

It's credit, Created out of thin air. So they write down an accounting entry they created. The only harm is psychological.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792067)

It's credit, Created out of thin air. So they write down an accounting entry they created. The only harm is psychological.

Exactly why I put all my money in a Dogecoin wallet. That way, I don't have to pay for someone else's fraudulent charges, only my own losses. I also don't have fire insurance, I keep a big piggy-bank in a fireproof box buried in my backyard and put all my spare change in it in case my house burns down. I'm saving a bundle that way.

Re:UHH (2)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#45791723)

I had a fraudulent charge appear on my card this month for $600. Guess how much i'm out, zero. Got my replacement card in two days.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791753)

You pretend like you don't pay for that... You have paid far more than $600 for that feature.

Re:UHH (2)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#45791773)

That's nice. I don't pay interest charges on credit cards, ever, and the store charges the same price card or cash.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791831)

I agree the cost is sufficiently hidden so that most people feel they are paying nothing. In reality pretty much everything you will ever buy is marked up by ~3% to pay for the fraud protection.

Re:UHH (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#45791993)

That's not a bad deal.
I get 1% back as cash for everything that goes through my card.
It also means I've got two months of mortgage interest saved as well.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792261)

Maybe its not a bad deal, but anyone using credit cards has paid far more than $600 for it.

Re:UHH (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#45792309)

Except for gas, everyone using anything to pay is putting up money for credit card fraud. The cash customers (mostly) pay just as much as the credit customers. Our local co-op basically begs you to use cash, but cannot charge a different price without violating their contract with the processor.

Re:UHH (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#45792397)

I pay with cash at local businesses for that reason, but big chains? Who cares.

Re: UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794039)

Yeah, and that cash back comes out of higher interchange fees to the merchant for accepting rewards cards, so the prices are higher than they might otherwise be to cover it.

Re:UHH (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45792009)

The monetary system is designed to function like one bank. With one bank, deposits are just transferred around. There's no drain on reserves since the deposits are the reserves. So when something is stolen, the bank doesn't pay for it. It can simply create more deposits and transfer them to the victims. These are simply accounting entries. The bank likes to make you think someone has to pay for it, but that's just so they can whine about how much they're suffering when they're really not, the only cost is the electricity involved in deleting one computer entry and adding another.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792221)

Well if there is new money being created all the existing money will be worth slightly less.

Re:UHH (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45792513)

Why would that be? If you suddenly realize that I have more money, do you have to raise your prices even if your production costs haven't increased, just because ... you can? So inflation is purely psychological? What if your psychology changed so that you didn't measure your worth relative to me, but simply by what made you happy, independent of me?

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792555)

That's because the total sum of all money represents the value of the total sum of all assets on the planet. The amount of assets did not change, the amount of money did, therefore each unit of money has to be worth a smaller proportion of the total assets.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792951)

Thanks, much better answer than I would have come up with.

Re:UHH (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45793033)

That's not even what the quantity theory of money says. Your theory is very naive and not supported by evidence.

When a bank creates a loan, it creates money out of thin air. There's no connection between money and assets.

When the stock market goes down, does that mean the value of my money goes up? Since assets just decreased? So prices at the grocery store should deflate?

You have $100 worth of goods. I have $100. Now someone steals my $100, and uses it to buy your goods, say. Then the bank creates $100 and gives it to me. You buy more of the same amount of goods you just sold for $100. But suddenly, because I have $100 that I didn't have before, you have to raise your prices? Why? Your cost didn't change. The only thing that changed was your knowledge that I had been given $100? And that alone makes you devalue your money, even though your costs didn't change? That's psychology, pure and simple. There's no necessity for you to devalue the money. It's a choice, one that you shouldn't make.

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793071)

People selling stuff will slowly raise prices as they try to get as much as they can. It is an iterative process.

Re:UHH (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45793521)

Shouldn't competition nullify that?

Re:UHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793573)

I am really confused. How do you think competition could nullify an increase in the amount of currency in order to keep prices the same?

Re:UHH (1)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#45793627)

Say you write software, and you charge $100/hour. $100 is stolen from me, used to buy one hour of your time. I am given $100, created out of thin air. Why would you now charge me more than $100 for an hour of your time? If you did, why wouldn't someone else see an opportunity to undercut you and charge the same $100 that he charges now? So why would I pay more for your time than I could get from another who didn't raise his prices just because some money was created to reimburse me?

Re:UHH (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about a year ago | (#45794179)

The $100 reimbursed to you is not created out of thin air, it is subtracted from the balance sheets of the credit card company. The hour of bought time represents extra assets created (this part is out of thin air). The asset:dollar ratio has increased, meaning the dollars per asset has decreased, i.e. you can now buy more with each dollar and the next hour of software development will cost you $99.9999999999.

Of course that is the situation under perfect knowledge. What really happens is that it takes time for these changes to become 'known' by the economy. Further, governments keep printing more dollars to deliberately devalue their currency to avoid the paradox of thrift where the economy grinds to a halt (so that hour of programming will really be $100.00000001).

Re:UHH (2)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#45793895)

Adding $100 to circulation makes little difference, because there is over 10 billion times that amount of currency in circulation [federalreserve.gov] . So you would expect, of course, prices to go up by around one ten-billionth, much less than noticeable.

The problem is if the government decides to manufacture tons of money. Let's go high for the sake of making a point, say $500 million trillion. So now the government can pay all its bills and then give everyone a billion dollars and we're all happy and rich, right?

Well, if I'm rich, I'm not going to work any more. I don't need no stinkin' job. I'm going to take my billions and grab a few mansions and some awesome cars and tech and maybe an island, right after I get my last Big Mac at Mickey D's.

I pull up to the drive-thru, but nobody is there. Oh, wait, everyone's a billionnaire and doesn't need to work. But who's going to satisfy my cravings for two pieces of meat in thick buns with secret sauce? And then it dawns on me... if I can't get a Big Mac, I can't get a gourmet meal. I can't go into a Best Buy. I can't find a realtor to sell me those mansions. Crap, well this sucks.

But surely everyone has a price, right? I have a lot of money, someone will make me a Big Mac for a million dollars, I'm sure of it. Well, ok, someone takes me up on the offer. And I suppose someone will take time away from their rich lives to be my realtor for 100 million dollars. And the guys down at the local TV store will work for a few million an hour. And it turns out, my billions are draining quickly this way... I guess I need to go back to work, so long as I can make a few million an hour myself.

This is hyperinflation. This is what happens when the government adds money to the economy. Of course, this isn't all that great. Now the $50,000 savings account our family has been working our lives toward is practically worthless, and those who have saved nothing in life, or haven't even attempted to find a job, have as much as we do.

So we can't just pump hundreds of trillions into the economy. If and when the decision is made to manufacture more currency, it will be in much smaller amounts. But the same economic principles hold, just in proportion to the total amount of money in circulation.

Re:UHH (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#45792293)

Commercial banks do not just "print more money" when it's stolen.

Re:UHH (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45792421)

No they just print more money when they feel like it.

Re:UHH (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45792499)

No, only the Fed does that, and they're very insistent about that monopoly.

Re:UHH (1)

Mr0bvious (968303) | about a year ago | (#45792871)

Fractional reserve banking - It's not printing money, it's a little more complicated, but the end result is not that different.

Much Stupidity Very Theft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791441)

Wow. Doge Much Value! Very respect.

Dogecoin (1)

relisher (2955441) | about a year ago | (#45791457)

A joke from the beginning

Headline of the friggin' year. (1)

wordsnyc (956034) | about a year ago | (#45791461)

They shoot unicorns, don't they?

This has been done. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#45791465)

Sounds like the electronic equivalent of printing your account number on all the deposit slips at the kiosk inside the bank.

Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a defense (3, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | about a year ago | (#45791475)

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

At least this time it's of a currency worth very, very little, so losses aren't that great and there are even more great minds thinking about how to solve cryptocurrency security problems. The end-user human will always be the weakest link, and the trust that the end user places on others always the most vulnerable part.

You can use your own wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791483)

I have no idea why people deposit their stuff in these online accounts. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for doing this.

I mean sure, you have to send your coins to an exchange if you're going to be trading but a wallet is something you can keep and secure yourself on your own system. Dogewallet was useless other than being a giant target.

Re:You can use your own wallet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791495)

"target"

Re:You can use your own wallet (1)

Linsaran (728833) | about a year ago | (#45791517)

I see what you did there . . .

Haven't people learned by now . . . (3, Informative)

Linsaran (728833) | about a year ago | (#45791497)

And as usual, people who trust their Crypto Currency to a web based service (especially one with such a short history to it, and no clearly defined security practices) end up getting their shit stolen. Really now, if you want your crypto coins (be they BTC LTC or whatever) safe keep them in a private wallet and encrypt it, don't load your fortunes onto some website, then complain when they get hacked.

This is kind of like carrying around a giant wad of cash in your pocket and then being mad when someone mugs you, keep a small amount of 'working cash' readily available, and keep the rest of it in a safe place. The same logic that you'd use with real money should apply to virtual money.

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#45791755)

I'd say it's more like carrying around a wad of cash and getting pissed off because it fell out of your wallet. You have no idea what the qualifications are of the people who design and build these crypto-coin websites. It's not like they have any regulatory and testing requirements you can point to as any assurance that they're at all secure.

The same goes for any black or grey market website. So what if the site uses SSL and is "Verisign Approved" -- that tells you nothing about their back-end security (or lack thereof.)

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#45792039)

But I keep most of my money in the bank. Unless the entire country collapses my money is guaranteed.
If that happens, crypto currency would be pretty useless without an internet connection.

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794703)

Because your government would only default on its bank savings guarantee as its ultimate resort. And because if your country went down then the internet would necessarily perish.

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792515)

More accurately, it's like handing your wallet to a completely random stranger on the Internet and saying "can you hold on to this for me?" Only this stranger has a whole wheelbarrow full of people's wallets and a sign that says "please rob me" taped to his back.

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (1)

King_TJ (85913) | about a year ago | (#45792905)

Well, to be fair, it's pretty hard to do much trading of crypto-coins at all if you're just going to keep them in your private wallet all the time.

That's one of the problems with this whole thing, IMO, and I hope better solutions are developed for it soon. I can't really trade my LTC, for example, until I move it to a wallet sitting on one of the web sites where it can be bought and sold. Being in the USA, my options for that are very limited if I want ways to convert it into US dollars. I've used www.litetree.com since it seems to be one of my only viable options, and as far as I can tell -- it's operated by a guy who is trying to do everything above-board and by the books.

Even so, the last time there was a big spike in LTC value and I wanted to sell a number of my coins? His site was down, reporting SQL server errors and unable to do anything once I logged in. By the time he had it back up the next morning, I had lost my opportunity to sell at the price I was after. There wasn't anything I could do either, since the LTC had been transferred into a wallet on his site earlier that day.

Maybe I haven't thought everything through well enough, but I'm not quite sure I understand why we couldn't just *require* all transactions to be pushed or pulled from each person's private wallets -- with all exchange sites simply acting as middle-men issuing the various transaction requests? Couldn't you use something akin to PGP with a public/private key pair involved, protecting each request happening between two anonymous parties, but skipping the whole step of making someone place funds on a wallet managed by the site so withdrawal or deposit actions happen on those?

Re:Haven't people learned by now . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794049)

1. Use a reputable exchange like Mt Gox, Btc-e, Cryptsy, etc. Only keep a fraction of your crypto assets liquid.
2. Your idea for a magnet link style p2p exchange sounds compelling. I suggest you start a kickstarter to develop the technology.

Successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791513)

Successful troll is successful

Re:Successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792457)

Successful troll is successful

Redundant post is redundant.

Eggs in one basket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791549)

This is what happens when you trust one wallet.

You can more or less trust banks because they are so big that you can assume your money is there.
Crypto-currencies aren't even in their baby-crawls yet, they just fell out the vag of greed itself.
It will be a long time before these currencies have the install-base for them to be reliable, and more to the point, more trustworthy as larger sites get established.
Until then, even your online wallet is a gamble.

Re:Eggs in one basket (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#45791583)

So they come up with a crypto-currency that makes it where you don't have to trust a bank to keep track of your money. So what is they first thing people do? Put it in a bank, of course. Except, being unrelated, the bank does not have to repay your losses if they get hacked or robbed.
Keep multiple copies of your wallet. Keep them password protected. Keep them in separate physical locations.Keep nothing in a wallet that is not YOUR wallet and which you control.

such crap... digital currency is here to stay. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791567)

This latest incident is just one in the long (and growing) list of problems that cryptocurrencies are currently facing.

FUD!

Tip: HOST YOUR OWN WALLET!

It's digital currency and one of it's greatest features is that nobody can take it away from you. Trust online repositories and wallets as un-secure for the next few years and keep as little as possible in them.

Transfer coin to off-line storage with backups and you're golden.

Internet in a nutshell (3, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#45791615)

I still can't tell how much of this is a joke and how much is real...

What's next? Dolancoin, featuring a crudely drawn homicidal duck? Frycoin, urging people to quietly and quickly accept the "money"?

Regardless, any of these is basically the same as Monopoly money. Next, we'll have reports of how a truckload of monopoly money got stolen. It'll be just as relevant, if not more, since something happened to someone (said truck was stolen).

Re:Internet in a nutshell (1)

iroll (717924) | about a year ago | (#45791649)

Wow. Such skeptic. Much insight. Many original thoughts.

Re:Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791675)

Dolancoin

Gooby Pls!

Re:Internet in a nutshell (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#45791743)

So in other words they are stocks which pay no dividends. Seems no one cares as someone will always pay for it

Re:Internet in a nutshell (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#45791793)

Bitcoin started as an attempt at an actual currency, the earliest adopters wanted it to become such, and there are a few places now (and many illegal ones) where it can be used to purchase goods. It's spiraled into being mostly speculative - I think if it were only used as a currency it would be trading around $30 - but there's a fundamental element of an actual currency.

Dogecoin started either as a shitty joke, a shitty meme, or an attempt to cash in on the Bitcoin hype bubble. I know of nowhere that actually accepts it, and the only people who have any seem to be people wondering what to do with their now-ineffective GPU Bitcoin mining rigs.

I considered for a bit whether Dogecoin could be used to see how much of Bitcoin's valuation is due to speculation, but there are too many interdependent variables to get any meaningful data out of it. But it isn't even useful for that.

Re:Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791963)

Just wondering, where is an illegal place?

Re:Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792159)

There is a sex toy shop accepting DOGEs: http://www.cryptosextoys.com/

Re:Internet in a nutshell (1, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#45792251)

bitcoin was engineered from the start to be inherently deflationary, this goal was met and in doing so it has failed as a currency.

Re:Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793289)

Exactly and succinctly. Once a ponzi scheme gets big enough it has its own value greater than any real currency COULD be in terms of growth.

Until the new input drops off suddenly, instantly. You want to be out of the boat before that time.

Re:Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792313)

I'm assuming that it was an attempt at an actual currency by people who didn't take any economics or anything remotely close to economics. Because it is a piss-poor currency both inherently (deflationary) and in how it's been used (speculation).

Re: Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793039)

The core idea behind cryptocurrencies is what give them inherent value. People struggle to accept them because its something new and relatively abstract, but I have no doubt these phenomena are here to stay. Going back to an internet without bitcoin seems impossible. Doge has surpassed litecoin in many areas already and that's just after a few weeks. Its success is due to how it remove all the unpleasentness of bitcoin and others. Doge is fun to use and is actually used to trade with by normal people unlike the other coins.

Re: Internet in a nutshell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794641)

Going back to an internet without bitcoin would indeed be impossible, but only because Slashdot would need to find some other crap to post about every day.

Re:Internet in a nutshell (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#45792985)

I'm pretty sure Dolancoin is the one that zeros your account when you try to build a competing stadium or internet service in New York, or join a union [nydailynews.com] .

Not news (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year ago | (#45791859)

I wouldn't expect to see a report like this if someone had managed to steal 15 bitcoins.

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45791913)

FDIC Insured

Re:ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794131)

"In Cody Wilson's latest attempt to build his personal brand, he is today announcing his intention to antagonize government bodies in to regulating a harmless technology by releasing two new Cryptocoins: "The Dollar" aka: USD & "FDIC Insured" aka: FRN. The FDIC is particularly compelling because in the event your USD are stolen by an online exchange, the FDIC mining pool "The Fed" will mine you FRN to replace them."

He currently has a Kickstarter campaign where he is offering to configure cgminer to mine FRN on a BAMT live-usb stick as an "EARLY BIRD SPECIAL" reward.

Unlike USD, the total number of FRN is not fixed. Industry insiders speculate this will result in rapid depreciation of FRN, encouraging those holding it to give it away as quickly as possible in a game of economic hot potato. Already there is talk of FRN exchanges "VISA" & "MASTERCARD" where you could sell FRN on margin in a form of naked short. It is expected that the housing market denominated in FRN is currently in the midst of an asset bubble.

Dogecoin --- How did we hit this low? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792129)

Sure, let's not report on real cryptos such as Peercoin or NXT.. instead, let's focus on a cheap knockoff. Seems legit.

Re:Dogecoin --- How did we hit this low? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792595)

This is far more interesting, and a joke currency that doesn't try to take itself seriously. The BitCoin gag started going downhill after people started thinking it was supposed to buy things.

Enough ponzies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45792865)

I can't wait until this *coin fad goes away. All I ever think about it is "a fool and his money are soon parted" whenever I hear somebody talking about how great it is and how I should mine it too. And now we're ending up with $RANDOMNAMEcoin, which are more or less just clones of one another. If nobody drank the koolaid then this currency would be worth the paper it's printed on. Sorry, it really isn't worth the money it's printed on and it really isn't untraceable...

My Plan for Wealth (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45792899)

1) Create Dogecoin miner client.

2) Get other people to install miner

3) Client also secretly finds Bitcoin wallets and sends them to me.

4) Profit? Yes profit!

Ironically this gives Dodegcoin legitimacy. (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | about a year ago | (#45792991)

Some found a need to steal DOGE. It is tradeable and actually worth something... this only bolsters that conclusion..
I think Dogecoin is a joke and was intended as such but with all the alt coins I stay confused...

I am mining Bells. I thought they were more fun anyway...

Re:Ironically this gives Dodegcoin legitimacy. (1)

cshark (673578) | about a year ago | (#45795323)

It's trading at over 300% of its original value. Granted, when you figure in that it's only worth a fraction of a penny, it doesn't sound like much. But it's one of the faster growing altcoins right now.

I blame cats for this theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45793315)

Long live Kittycoin!

Wrong conclusion (2)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#45794587)

Banks are hacked and abused as well, but this is never published. What happened to Dodgecoin once is probably peanuts when compared to what happens to credit card companies every year.

Re:Wrong conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45795743)

Except that banks and credit card companies have systems in place to ensure those types of thefts don't affect their customers. So actually the conclusion is pretty sound.

Re:Wrong conclusion (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about a year ago | (#45796087)

Yes, and there's this thing called FDIC insurance that makes sure that if my bank gets hacked, my balance remains the same. Same thing if the bank suddenly disappears. The same features that crypto currency proponents tout as ways to avoid the supposed evil of central banks are precisely what makes this kind of attacks easier to get away with, and therefore much more likely.

A world with banks working on crypto currencies requires real life contracts and huge amounts of non-crypto collateral.

Keep them Doges movin ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45794899)

Keep movin', movin', movin',
Though banks are disapprovin',
Keep them Doges movin' Rawhide!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just mine and throw and grab 'em,
Soon we'll be living high and wide.
Boy my heart's calculatin'
Fast money will be waitin', be waiting at the end of my ride.

Just one note (2)

cshark (673578) | about a year ago | (#45795317)

This is not a problem unique to cryptocurrencies. This particular incident is one that can be chocked up to kids not using php properly. Bad website implementation is not the fault of any cryptocurrency, be it one for pomeranians, or human beings.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?