Quote from: coins101 on September 27, 2016, 10:34:47 PM

This BIP update would need to find its way into Bitcoin.

This is one approach, one that I think could work with some sort of Proof of running a Bitcoin Node. If you can attach some meta data and have that going into the blockchain, you can look that up to do some validation.

The requirement to have collateral is a great way to fix the issue of fake SPR nodes, but the Bitcoin nodes will be held by the SPR node. So we need a way for the Spreadwallet to communicate with the Bitcoin node and then the bitcoin blockchain. Possibly making the Spreadwallet a Bitcoin wallet too.

The good think is that the Spreadwallet can create a hash of something, like a notification that the particular ServiceNode has been elected for payment subject to verification. Being able to pass a hashed message through the ServiceNode >> get that into a payment loop into the Bitcoin blockchain via the Spread/Bitcoin wallet >> and then back out again because the Spreadwallet can validate the hashed message >> could be an option to our particular Sybil problem.

Will it add more data to the blockchain? Yes. It is worth the price to? If it creates a payment system for running nodes, i think so. The long term goal is to help fund mining too, so the network will be paying for the data storage.

Easy? No. Possible? Maybe.

Proof of storage. Remind me.....do you mean the MIT research on doing data mining on encrypted databases?

It seems like a less than ideal way of going about things just because you would have to rely on it being implemented. I understand the incentives work in the network's favor, but maybe some people would resist it just because of the block size issue. Ideally a way could be found without having to change Bitcoin at the protocol level, no?

I suppose if it was the only viable way, there would be lots of lobbying the bitcoin developers to implement it. We would need tons of PR.

I remember Georgem said a while back something about the proof we were looking for was a proof that showed one bitcoin node was associated with one and only one full node. Is there no other way that you can thing of without implementing a BIP into BTC? You said it was only one of the options.

As for the proof of storage, I don't actually know. I was genuinely curious. I saw it referred to in this forum topic here:

Quote from: CIYAM on August 06, 2014, 11:37:53 AM

I would guess the biggest problem you'd face with such an idea is "just how do you determine that someone has a full node"?

This would not be a trivial thing to do as presumably it would require some sort of separate consensus algorithm (i.e. a "proof of storage" type idea).

I wasn't exactly sure what this person was referring to.

He goes on to explain in some more detail.

Upon reading further I actually think he was alluding to proof of storage of the bitcoin blockchain...

Seems like actually a few people suggested an alt-coin that helped with it. But no one really had the answers when it came down to it.