Quote from: qdoop on October 14, 2014, 08:56:03 PM

Bitcoin is just fine but talking about ways to improve it by relaxing some requirements in favor of a simpler behavior (such as using some external time references widely available over the internet) i think always helps.

I have to disagree with you, but this part is a matter of opinion.

I think Bitcoin should strive to be as decentralized as possible. It's not perfectly decentralized now, but I see no reason to add additional potential points of failure or points of control. Rather I'd prefer the opposite -- remove what few remaining centralized points are left.

Quote from: qdoop on October 14, 2014, 08:12:29 PM

It is obvious that you do not forward anything received before you double check it and compare it in case of block hash with your own best result. So a modest performance node can only flood minor performance nodes.
Sorry if i did not mention that but i was aware of this practice and should not change it.

I suspect that the majority of nodes on the network are not miners, and therefore have no concept of best-block-so-far-in-my-pool, and remain susceptible to a DoS.

Quote from: qdoop on October 14, 2014, 08:12:29 PM

What is the max range of possible bit transitions? 128
Is it easy to generate them? not so straight
Is it easy to count them? yes simpler than generating a random one of them or calculating a hash

I think you just described a PoW system... hard to generate and easy to verify. How this add-on PoW is any improvement of the PoW already in use?