TL;DR
- Dogecoin co-founder Billy Markus rejected claims that merged mining creates a dangerous Litecoin dependency, telling critics to revisit Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin white paper.
- Developer Paulo Vidal questioned Dogecoin’s security if Litecoin stopped, miner incentives, and whether Auxiliary Proof of Work remains the appropriate long-term arrangement.
- Markus and Litecoin Foundation executive David Schwartz favor keeping merged mining, while the debate leaves unresolved how Dogecoin would adapt to a sudden Litecoin shutdown.
Dogecoin co-founder Billy Markus has pushed back against renewed doubts about the cryptocurrency’s security, telling critics to read Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin white paper. The dispute centers on Dogecoin’s merged mining arrangement with Litecoin, a system that lets miners secure multiple networks using the same hash power and proof of work. The curious tension is that a mechanism credited with strengthening Dogecoin is now being questioned as a possible dependency, reopening a debate about whether shared incentives provide durable protection or merely conceal how closely the two networks have become economically connected over time for years.
“for example, if Litecoin disappeared tomorrow, why do you believe Dogecoin's security would be unaffected?”
bro read satoshi’s white paper
miners mine for reward
you’ve argued long enough that i don’t think you’re interested in how things work
— Shibetoshi Nakamoto (@BillyM2k) July 19, 2026
Shared Mining Faces a Difficult Hypothetical
Dogecoin Foundation developer Paulo Vidal triggered the exchange by asking whether Dogecoin currently depends on Litecoin for security, what would happen if Litecoin stopped operating, and whether miners primarily secure Litecoin or value the extra rewards from Dogecoin and other Auxiliary Proof of Work networks. His questions challenge the assumption that a historically useful design must remain the correct long-term solution, even though they do not present evidence that Litecoin is preparing to disappear. The hypothetical nevertheless forces the community to examine incentives that usually remain invisible while both chains continue functioning normally in practice.
Markus rejected the concerns directly, arguing that miners mine for rewards and declaring Vidal’s arguments invalid. His response was characteristically blunt, but it also returned the discussion to the economic logic described in Bitcoin’s foundational design. Security, in Markus’s view, follows incentives rather than loyalty to any particular blockchain, meaning miners would respond to available compensation rather than simply abandon profitable proof-of-work activity. That answer sounds straightforward, yet it leaves the underlying puzzle intact: how would Dogecoin’s security market reorganize if the network supplying its merged-mining base suddenly ceased operating under such an abrupt shock?
The broader community remains divided, although prominent Litecoin voices support the existing structure. David Schwartz, director of projects and strategic partnerships at the Litecoin Foundation, has said merged mining remains Dogecoin’s best option and would still be appropriate even without benefits flowing to Litecoin. Markus likewise said Dogecoin should stay merged mined, calling any move away from the model pointless. A debate framed as an urgent security warning therefore ends, for now, with defenders recommending no change, while unresolved questions about dependence, rewards, and long-term resilience continue hovering over an arrangement that has worked historically.