Dogecoin is a currency that has been in the market for a long time and has managed to survive and have a community despite the fact that it does not have something that makes it stand out from other cryptocurrencies.
It is generally seen that it is used to give rewards, especially in faucets and they are used for micropayments due to their low transaction costs.
Between the three, i would have given it telegram, but its restrictions/limitations is annoying. So, i prefer Whatsapp because in addition to its user- friendly, Whatsapp security is superb, its end -to -end encryption ensures that only you and the person you are communicating with can read what is sent and nobody in between, not even Whatsapp. Every message you send out has its own unique lock and key.
A second problem with platform-associated virtual currencies that limits their circulation is that they are centralized. This leaves the wealth of the parties - or their identity and property, if you like - at the mercy of a third party who mediates the transactions between them. Centralization, if it also includes the right to issue currency, allows virtual currencies to be subject to abusive seigniorage. The first problem is a problem with all electronic means of payment except cryptocurrencies. The second is a particular problem with unsupported private currencies, be they virtual worlds or real worlds. Understanding each of these risks of centralization separately is useful to understand the evolutionary leap of cryptocurrencies and why they are closer than other virtual currencies to paper money.
Centralization and the costs associated with the verification of transactions, plus the loss of formal anonymity that this entails, is inevitable in the transmission of electronic money. In the case of virtual currencies, a third party - usually the owner of the platform in the case of virtual currencies - has to register identities and transactions to prevent electronic or virtual currencies from being spent twice. This accounting or registration is not necessary in the case of a transaction involving physical money, because even a counterfeit bill cannot be used twice. But, as the early history of digital wealth shows, this is not obvious when it comes to digital files that are eminently copyable (Graf, 2014: 56). There is also a psychological incentive involved in maintaining this double counting in the case of virtual worlds (Shaviro, 2007). For two people to accept that they have actually entered into a digital transaction and spend time and work in obtaining the wealth that they then transfer in the virtual world, the balance that increases in the account of one regarding a transaction must decrease in the account of the other. 18
The problem of centralization had seemed inevitable until the advent of cryptocurrencies (Bonneau et al., 2015; Nakamoto, 2009). As Satoshi Nakamoto points out in the article with the conceptual foundations of Bitcoin, the permanent problem with electronic transactions is that they require a validator, since "the receiver cannot verify that the issuer has not spent the currency twice." This validator - as Nakamoto correctly pointed out - will always have factual power over the parties of an electronic transaction (Nakamoto, 2009: 2; the translation of this article is ours). For example, he can refuse to make payments, reverse them, limit them to a certain amount, or use knowledge of the identity of the parties to favor one of them or himself. This is objectively a problem for all those who want to transact electronically with the security and anonymity equivalent to that afforded by a current money transaction between strangers.
Seigniorage over virtual currencies is potentially a more difficult problem to solve because the conflict of interest between users and the lord or issuer of the virtual currency is more direct. The developers of virtual currencies are not governed by legal institutions that give faith to all users that they will not change the rules or the exchange rates of their currencies or the amount of them circulating as central banks do. Virtual currencies are by definition unsupported and unregulated currencies. Of course, issuers could be contractually tied to the users of their platforms. They could declare that their currencies will follow a stable pattern similar to that of misnamed virtual currencies that reflect commodities or electronic money. But like a dictator who controls the currency of a financially unstable country, the issuer of a virtual currency can always increase his seigniorage, which is the benefit of being the controller of the currency. The most obvious mechanisms at your fingertips are changing the cost over time of using the currency versus holding it, or what is the same, the basic discount interest rate of your virtual economy; or increase issuance, which gives rise to what is technically known as the inflation tax. Both game developers and loyalty program sponsors - such as flight mileage programs - are constantly accused of tampering with these factors by devaluing their currencies.
Именно так. Эфиру до битка еще расти и расти, и вряд ли в ближайшие лет 5 эфир вообще перегонит биткоин хотя бы в капитализации, так как уже в этом плане это сделать практически невозможно, учитывая отрыв капитализации битка от всех остальных монет.
По пейпалу что-то каждый день какие то новые подробности, сначала сказали что на него нельзя будет завести крипту и вывести, только все покупки - продажи разрешены в самом кошельке у них, теперь говорят что нет, а в 2021 планирует выпустить вообще свой токен.