dip-0074 - doginal channels in consideration of BOLTS #9

georgeartem · 2023-10-10T05:32:32Z

"Doginal Channel" - Risk Mitigation Proposal

georgeartem · 2023-11-28T19:11:52Z

an alternative path may be to implement LIP 003 MW-EB as suggested by LTC community https://github.com/litecoin-project/lips/blob/master/lip-0003/MW-EB.png

patricklodder

I'm missing the following:

Proposed protocol changes
A proof of concept or reference implementation of the proposed protocol changes

Comments in-line

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T22:44:21Z

dip-0074

+  Title: Doginal Channels (Dogecoin | DRC-20)
+  Author: George Artem <[email protected]>
+  Status: Draft Abstract
+  Type: Informational - Collaboration Request


From the README of this repository:

This repository contains three types of files: BIPs: Bitcoin Improvement Proposals DIPs: Dogecoin-specific variations to existing BIPs Standards documents: Draft standards for submission as RFCs (Request For Comments)

If you have good arguments for why it is needed, I can create a separate discussion forum here for protocol discussions, but to be honest, I think that using the one over at dogecoin/dogecoin reaches many more people, and can perfectly serve as a starting point for writing DIPs, imho. Let me know your thoughts.

have written dip-0073 to address your response as a separate point of discussion - waiting to push, experiencing some auth token issues - apologies for the chaos earlier - there is a lot of chaos around L1, L2, Sakura, and the DRC-20 issue - but it needs to be addressed eventually - DIPS would help limit the chaos IMHO

On any permissionless network, there will always be chaos. Lack of chaos means lack of usage really.

What would be the main thing you'd want to address about all the above examples you mention?

Ultimately, I would like to create a decentralized organization composed of semi-anonymous members that rivals the work that the foundation is doing without the baggage that the foundation carries and is aligned with the core dev team with the goal of driving adoption - Wyoming State laws help facilitate that to a large degree - more directly to your question - the DIP is intended as a conversation starter within this broader context around how to deal with DRC-20's or "doginals" as the title suggests

dogecoin/dogecoin#3873 is a first step that could in the mid term enable something like RGB as an alternative carrier to L1 inscribed data. dogecoin/dogecoin#3876 is an attempt to make those inscriptions less harmful. These are concrete proposals that could help alleviate some of the pains we've experienced from scriptsig abuse and both aren't requiring governance. We also have a round of proposals coming in towards ZKP enhancement that could enable many different alternatives to scriptsig abuse.

To your point re: organization. Just create an organization. There are multiple organizations active in the Dogecoin space and the more, the merrier if your goal was decentralization. Perhaps that is something easier to focus on too; after all, aligning with Dogecoin Core has been made super-easy in the past 58 months, because the only protocol change done was to remove all overriding authority from developers from it.

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T22:48:11Z

dip-0074

+
+==Abstract==
+
+This DIP describes introduction and changes proposed in BOLTS #0 #1 #2 #3 and #5 to adapt them to be suitable for use with dogecoin-node.


changes proposed in BOLTS #0 #1 #2 #3 and #5 to adapt

BOLTS are a layer 2 protocol specification. Specifying a layer 2 protocol inside the layer 1 protocol specification will complicate things and create a tight coupling that will slow down any evolution on the layer 2 and add pressure to L1 developers. I would strongly recommend keeping ANY layer 2 specifications and implementations separate from L1. Note that there can be many L2s.

I have forked some repos over into github.com/dogedealz perhaps it would be more appropriate to address these types of things there - seeing your earlier comment, hoping you might feel the same way

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T22:58:01Z

dip-0074

+Decisions made in BOLTS are Bitcoin-Lightning-specific, and changes and collaboration will be required to understand existing vs desired
+future state. This brief should be read in combination with BOLTS summary <a href="https://github.com/lightning/bolts/" target"_blank">here.</a>


changes [..] will be required

To what?

collaboration will be required

With whom?

This brief should be read in combination with BOLTS summary

See above - keeping loose coupling is recommended. Let layer 2 refer to layer 1, but not vice versa. What we can do on L1 is support generic use-cases, to enable an as wide as possible array of solutions for consuming services.

For example: having non-malleable multi-party transactions is not just beneficial for Lightning, but this is also a wish multiple bridge developers have expressed.

we could use a similar backporting methodology with BOTLS as implemented with core - kindly see what repositories I have forked into /dogedealz and see if there is anything additional you might like to see there - like in the 'random' repo

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:02:58Z

dip-0074

+
+==Motivation==
+
+DRC-20 deploy, mint, transfer and other inscription functions create a risk to the primary function of dogecoin as a medium of exchange. The community has 


create a risk to the primary function of dogecoin as a medium of exchange

Please provide arguments how that is so and what the impact is.

well, what other mechanism for expression would you suggest that is not a DIP?

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:05:03Z

dip-0074

+
+DRC-20 deploy, mint, transfer and other inscription functions create a risk to the primary function of dogecoin as a medium of exchange. The community has 
+the right to express their thoughts on this issue by creating a DIP in order to urge creation of a more friendly ecosystem for node operators and consumers while attempting to
+address the issues associated with the limited function of DRC-20 marketplaces without implementing a complete re-write to PoS.


without implementing a complete re-write to PoS

PoS is not a solution to prevent inscriptions. People inscribe on Ethereum too.

please see the ReadMe file within dogedealz/foundation_wallet repo

need to do some work on writing a readme for the dogedealz main branch that would be a continuation of the discussion here - maybe there is something you could contribute there?

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:06:42Z

dip-0074

+the right to express their thoughts on this issue by creating a DIP in order to urge creation of a more friendly ecosystem for node operators and consumers while attempting to
+address the issues associated with the limited function of DRC-20 marketplaces without implementing a complete re-write to PoS.
+
+This DIP is meant to (re)introduce the concepts in the BOLTS above and to provide a mechanism for off-chain transfer of deployed DRC-20, dogemap and doge-dns inscriptions


to provide a mechanism for off-chain transfer of deployed DRC-20, dogemap and doge-dns inscriptions

This is where I expect a "how". Please explain how this DIP's solution (what is the solution?) mitigates the risk mentioned on line 18.

not totally sure about the "how" yet - perhaps something like "randoge"

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:07:10Z

dip-0074

+address the issues associated with the limited function of DRC-20 marketplaces without implementing a complete re-write to PoS.
+
+This DIP is meant to (re)introduce the concepts in the BOLTS above and to provide a mechanism for off-chain transfer of deployed DRC-20, dogemap and doge-dns inscriptions
+in order to support at minimum 33X growth in daily transactions prior to next run on crypto and achieve goals outlined in the "10/10/100X problem".


achieve goals outlined in the "10/10/100X problem".

Do you have a link where these goals are outlined? Whose goals are these?

these goals were stated previously by @ElonMusk

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:14:44Z

dip-0074

+
+== Speculative Impacts ==
+
+To address the issues associated with transaction time and transaction cost presented by DRC-20 and avoid future impacts of potential "spikes" associated with DRC-20. 


issues associated with transaction time

Transaction time is a combined function of luck (block is found) and policy of whomever found that block. Policy is up to each individual miner (or pool), and luck is up to the universe. The DigiShield function retargets difficulty based on past results, but past results are no guarantee for the future.

the issues associated with [..] transaction cost

Transaction costs are a function of supply (of blocks) and demand (of transactions requiring space). No guarantees can be given regarding the costs of a transaction, because the network decides the fees, not the protocol.

if we choose to use Algorand the luck will be baked with quantum resilience and randomness

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:18:45Z

dip-0074

+== Speculative Impacts ==
+
+To address the issues associated with transaction time and transaction cost presented by DRC-20 and avoid future impacts of potential "spikes" associated with DRC-20. 
+To avoid necessity to consider PoS and face potential negative impacts to community sentiment and economic market disruption. To avoid the risks associated with a "lift and shift" migration


To avoid necessity to consider PoS

What necessity is there to consider PoS if this DIP is not accepted?

face potential negative impacts to community sentiment

The protocol is agnostic to its users and does not care about sentiment. Changing a protocol to manipulate sentiment is what the Federal Reserve, politicians and crypto scammers do.

economic market disruption

Markets are fully external to the Dogecoin protocol, because the Dogecoin protocol only knows DOGE. Same remark from above re: manipulation can be applied to markets.

good points.

patricklodder · 2023-12-19T23:22:06Z

dip-0074

+
+== Security Impacts ==
+
+DRC-20 security is presently secured from counterfeiting via DRC-20 marketplace indexing and data sharing.


DRC-20 is a second layer on top of Dogecoin. The protocol is not aware of it, and shouldn't, per L2 coupling rationale above.

The Dogecoin protocol must NEVER play cat and mouse games with L2s. If specific functionality is needed for operators to make better decisions on their own sovereign nodes, then I am 100% open to discuss these, as long as they are generic.

georgeartem

thank you for your review here @patricklodder

georgeartem · 2025-09-14T18:09:02Z

Thank you for the feedback. As you are probably aware of, going forward as of November of this year any business that wants to use cryptocurrency is going to need to explain to regulators how they are ISO 20022 compliant - the updates related to the decentralization of the core protocol are well and good and as far as the #3873 and #3876 are concerned I am going to take your word for it - but the question of business adoption is going to hinge around compliance and being solely reliant on Dogecoin Foundation for that purpose is a rather dubious proposition - not everyone, as we have seen, is receptive of that org and its inner workings, nor is their documentation nearly sound enough in order to meet regulatory scrutiny IMHO - as far as creating an organization goes, I have sent you an invite.

…

On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:08 PM Old Dip Tracker ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In dip-0074 <#9 (comment)>: > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +<pre> + DIP: 74 + Title: Doginal Channels (Dogecoin | DRC-20) + Author: George Artem ***@***.***> + Status: Draft Abstract + Type: Informational - Collaboration Request dogecoin/dogecoin#3873 <dogecoin/dogecoin#3873> is a first step that could in the mid term enable something like RGB as an alternative carrier to L1 inscribed data. dogecoin/dogecoin#3876 <dogecoin/dogecoin#3876> is an attempt to make those inscriptions less harmful. These are concrete proposals that could help alleviate some of the pains we've experienced from scriptsig abuse and both aren't requiring governance. We also have a round of proposals coming in towards ZKP enhancement that could enable many different alternatives to scriptsig abuse. To your point re: organization. Just create an organization. There are multiple organizations active in the Dogecoin space and the more, the merrier if your goal was decentralization. Perhaps that is something easier to focus on too; after all, aligning with Dogecoin Core has been made super-easy in the past 58 months, because the only protocol change done was to remove all overriding authority from developers from it. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACZSY42NMY5KUD5QSRWQSET3SWHHZAVCNFSM6AAAAACGNZJ3F6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZTEMRSGIYDKOBVGA> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

dip-0074

2376a46

"Doginal Channel" - Risk Mitigation Proposal

patricklodder reviewed Dec 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

georgeartem commented Sep 13, 2025

View reviewed changes


		==Abstract==

		This DIP describes introduction and changes proposed in BOLTS #0 #1 #2 #3 and #5 to adapt them to be suitable for use with dogecoin-node.

		Decisions made in BOLTS are Bitcoin-Lightning-specific, and changes and collaboration will be required to understand existing vs desired
		future state. This brief should be read in combination with BOLTS summary <a href="https://github.com/lightning/bolts/" target"_blank">here.</a>


		==Motivation==

		DRC-20 deploy, mint, transfer and other inscription functions create a risk to the primary function of dogecoin as a medium of exchange. The community has


		== Speculative Impacts ==

		To address the issues associated with transaction time and transaction cost presented by DRC-20 and avoid future impacts of potential "spikes" associated with DRC-20.


		== Security Impacts ==

		DRC-20 security is presently secured from counterfeiting via DRC-20 marketplace indexing and data sharing.

dip-0074 - doginal channels in consideration of BOLTS #9

Are you sure you want to change the base?

dip-0074 - doginal channels in consideration of BOLTS #9

Uh oh!

Conversation

georgeartem commented Oct 10, 2023

Uh oh!

georgeartem commented Nov 28, 2023

Uh oh!

patricklodder left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

georgeartem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

georgeartem commented Sep 14, 2025 via email

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants