was attempting to include dogecoin in a wallet currently developing. however, very discouraged at this point. over an hour just trying to obtain a doge implementation for ubuntu. much problems. I almost never stray from compiling the daemon from source myself. Typically if there is no way to compile it, it is oh so rare I would install a precompiled version. However, just for a tester I figured I would add the repository ppa:cwayne18/doge. Oh, I didn't mention the problem was with an invalid detection of LibreSSL. However, OpenSSL is installed not Libre. So the resort to the PPA yielded the following error:

E: The repository 'http://ppa.launchpad.net/cwayne18/doge/ubuntu bionic Release' does not have a Release file.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
^ recommended if you are publishing a repo!

I take security very seriously on my dev machine. So obviously that was out of the question also. Resorting to the website offered me a javascript wallet which sort of defeats the whole purpose of what I am doing, I don't need somebody elses JS wallet for my work. I need a working version of the daemon. I have eight coins working great in my wallet so far. I thought since doge had such a low value it would be good for learning how to use crypto's which is part of the purpose of the wallet. That's about the only reason it was being included. Along with the fact that it should have been easily implemented being that it's another btc fork. So yeah, I am a bit miffed at this point and hanging up my hat on that one. Unless somebody has an actual fix for the absurd multi problem(s) I am looking at. I suggest to the devs to get back to work on fixing the problems that are preventing additional developments. Also having a repo like that just looks bad. The least that could be done is fixing the repo so I can download the damn daemon! alas, unless I see some obvious route to an easy solve as a response here, there's not much effort from this one on inclusion.