Dear all,

thank you for your posts. I am now back and have some time to reply  
I know for my solution we require are really big hard fork with big changes. I know that this is difficult. But this thread wants to show the fundamental properties of a fully decentralized cryptocurreny network.
I am working on a Beta version. It will take time. It will show my ideas more in an real environment. I hope after that a few developers may join in to develop it further.

You are also welcome to post here your ideas on fundamental properties of a fully decentralized cryptocurrency.

Cheers,
Andrew

Good to hear that "somebody" already implemented similar technologies. That shows that it could be a working solution.


Good points.
In my solution mining should be only possbile if there is a regular communication with the internet. It is very difficult for the attacker to make up the right response patterns. He has to calculate in advance all the time frames he has to add or subtract(from all the other client requests) to be able to make a response pattern, which would equal the pattern with which mining is possible.
Don´t forget, that everything would stay the same - it is only about mining "locations"!! All clients and miners can send out response requests. So you have to control a lot of this clients to falsify it.


Thanks for the advice  
What is your opinion on mining onyl at specific "cyber locations"?

Thanks for your answer. It shows me that I have to rework my article, so that it goes more in detail.
You have here a misunderstanding. I am not neccessarly talking about real location proof. I am also not a layman, so dont insult me please. I studied physics.
You are thinking into the wrong way. We are not talking about the exact measuremnet of a person´s/clients/miners position in earth coordinates.
We are talking about a pattern of response times. Certainly this pattern changes if someone changes positon with his client. Nobody can now
calculate the exact position of this client only by the pattern data. But virtually this pattern represents a "position".
Certainly this pattern is not measured exactly. It has to be given a tolerance window.
If we have 100 clients, who are distributed on the whole earth or even in space, as you like to bring in some astronomy, we would get now different response patterns for all
100 clients. Do you concur with that?
Due to different network conditions and different connections to the internet you get different patterns for people who are really on the same positions. Or if someone forges
the request we get also different patterns. So far I think we both concure, dont we?

My suggestion only works if we have a lot of knots. Then this Round trip delay methode does work. Because with the mass of knots the pattern accuracy is increasing. Then I can
determine network problems, poor connections. Delays if they are short enough are indeed difficult to detect. But you forget a second important part of my idea.
Mining is only possible with specific patterns. The patterns are not known publicly. Only after a block was solved the new one is published.
so the attacker who wants to mine on the same location with a different pattern, has to calculate the delays very good. The delays have to be matched to all incoming requests
to generate the right pattern. I think you see, that with the increasing number of clients, miners, this is difficult.
I hope I could explain well enough. But if I have time I will try to explain it more in detail in an article.
At the moment I have lots of things to do.
Thanks for the link to the hash function requirements.
Cheers,
Andrew

I am sorry that you are not interested. Look I do not want to force anyone here to help me with a fork.
I will try to do more homework to make my point, but noone here as is able to quote articles or papers which already dealt with a proof of location topic. But you are telling me there has been plenty of such suggestions. Sorry but I can not find them. Maybe I searched in a wrong way but it would have been nice if you at least gave me a hyperlink.
A respectfull discussion means for me that the other discussion partners are providing what they are talking about.
You and andytoshi had a few points of criticism why this is not a workable solution. They are good points.
I gave you an answer to that, why I think it is still a workable solution and your answer is you don´t want to reply anymore?
If it is does not work then it should be easy to answer to my points in my last post and explain it to me why it still should not work.
I dont say that this works perfectly how I say it should work. Certaily it is an improvable suggestion. But that is why I wanted to talk about that here. I could have gone to an Altcoin-Forum to present this.
But I think Bitcoin is a good thing and I would love to help. If you have some problems which you think are more suited to think about just tell me.
Thank you.

Dear Andytoshi and jl2012,


Why slowing the ping down would affect mining:
First, the communication between miners in a pool for example and even of a big miner, who mines on his own has to communicate with each other and the network. So it is possible to "hide" the request routines for latency time measurements in packages which are exchanged anyway.
Slowing down the receiving of packages would slow down the mining process. This is not in the interest of anyone.
If done, the swarm intelligence of the rest of the network could countermeasure. About the swarm intelligence which will in my scenario calculate the "position" patterns in cyberspace and would react to attacks which would cause wrong/faked "position" patterns, I will write a more in-detail article as soon as possible.

Implemantaion into the blockchain:

Yes the blockchain produces order. I mean here an implementation into the calculation of a block. It it is necessary to implement the "position" pattern into the blocks so that it is sure where someone has already mined and from where mining is not allowed at the moment or anymore.

This idea or suggestion was already there:

If it shows up so often, please give sources.I have not read about anything which works similar to this kind of proof of location. And in a sense it is not proof of
a real location. It is a proof of response patterns. Please provide me the paper or other sources you´re talking about. Thanks.

@jl2012
"Assuming your strategy works (which I seriously doubt), a monopoly miner can buy VPS all over the world and pretend to be many smaller independent miners."

That is a good point.
I don´t think that this could work if the whole network would detect that someone is just relaying data and still mines at the same "place". The network would detect, that
from each VPS the same Blocks are transfered. But either way the monopoly miner has to change its VPS all the time to really outsmart the swarm intelligence.
I am sure there is also a algorithmic solution to counteract this.
But you are right this could be a vulnerable point.

Cheers,
Andrew

@jl2012;  @andytoshi



You both are right if there are not many miners and clients. But if you have enough independent clients and miners which send out response requests through the same ports you also use for mining then we have a complete different situation. Yes a miner could slow down the ping response. But it would also effect mining. And I would implement the pattern of the pingresponses into the Blockchain. So it is difficult for an attacker to be able to fake a response pattern. He has to recreate the response pattern which was generated by a lot of clients/miners byte response of him. I hope I made it clear.
But if you feel this is not new please quote a site/forum where it was already suggested? Thank you.

Thanks a lot for the advice - I already read a lot and want also to write a lot But at one point you have to start writing But I am still reading and also want to read a lot.

@andytoshi

I think I have to explain it it an other way:

If I have a miner at location x, and 4 different clients or miners send the miner at location x, request response requests, and then we have 4 different round trip delay time domains. From this time domains the miner x gets a timedomain pattern. If the miner switches position he gets different timedomains.
I hope it is now more clear.

Dear Bitcoin-Developer-Forum,

I am new here and I want to participate in trying to improve Bitcoin.
As I experienced during reading here and at Hackingdistributed.com there is a big difference between people
who want major changes and people who want to defend the Bitcoin architecture we have today. I understand
both positions very well but to either case it is important to set up fundamentals for a new Bitcoin era.
That would be an era when Bitcoin is able to emerge more and more to a big crypto currency who plays a major role on the currency market. For such a case it is inevitable to be able to guarantee decentralization on the long term or it will cease to exist.
So I thought about ways how it would be possible to make such a guarantee stamp work:

http://techreports2014.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/fundamentals-of-a-possible-new-bitcoin-fork-bitcoin-2-0/


In this article at my Blog I launched just a couple of days ago I describe a few ideas of a way to guarantee decentralization. Certainly there are lot of points not yet fully worked out. But it was important for me to share this here, before going too much into detail. Maybe some of you would like to join in for a discussion or even to help work it out more deeply.
I hope I can give you at least some hints to help to improve Bitcoin.

Cheers,
Andrew

[/quote]

Hi Andrew,

In future it is better to create a new thread rather than resurrecting an old one, especially one as vivacious as this one.

As to the content of your article, I briefly skimmed it. A few comments -- your concerns about ASIC monopolies are largely addressed in my ASICs and Decentralization FAQ, and secondly, the "anti-monopoly" scheme by Sirer and Eyal is seriously and fundamentally broken by being progress-free. It seems to me that these authors are more concerned with promoting themselves with doomsday headlines than they are getting the fundamentals of what they write about correct, and it's best for the Bitcoin world if they not be given attention.

Andrew

[/quote]

Hi Andrew,

thank you for your reply. And thank for your FAQ it does explain a lot of things pretty well. Especially why ASIC-miners are so important to validate the Blockchain on the long term. But on the other hand in my article I have not ruled out the use of ASIC miners. Just possible monopolies in the future for controling the network I see as an threat for Bitcoin. Please read the part of my article which deals with the position stamp for guaranteeing the decentralization of bitcoin. With decentralization I do not mean that in the future the should not be any mining pools or big miners. On the contrary I mean a safeguard which is also implemented into the blockchain to counter attacks and to detect monopolies. My suggestions would also impact on the hardware flow. But these we have to dicuss in detail.

I think I will open a new thread about this topic

Cheers,
Andrew

@all

A very interesting paper. But I don´t think that the crypto currencies will self destruct themselfes if we can make the right adjustments.
I have thought about a way to guarantee the decentralization of a crypto currency or Bitcoin on the long term. I have written an article and would like to hear what you think about it:
http://techreports2014.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/fundamentals-of-a-possible-new-bitcoin-fork-bitcoin-2-0/

Hope it can help and I would love discuss it with you guys.

Greetings.
Andrew