Requiring a code to log a geocache

[+Team Microdot]

10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Just this week a local hider hid a cache based on blockchain, which gave me an idea of how you could use blockchain's "proof of work" to verify that you accomplished some task prior to logging the cache.  Of course it would have to be optional, but once again peoples' assumptions can be leveraged...

 

That sounds interesting

 

Can you share the GC code please?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Interesting concept.

 

One code per geocaching account wishing to log presumably.

 

Who would verify the code?

 

What stops me sharing the codes effectively?

 

 

 

Cache owner may be able to obtain a code by submitting a passport, birth certificate, and social security card (original documents only) and a DNA sample.  The authorization code will be encrypted using a 4096 bit RSA with a a salted hash.

 

In order to log a cache the finder must entered the authorization code distributed using blockchain and use two factor authentication (only a retinal scan or fingerprint may be used for the second level of authentication).  

 

OR

 

Geocachers could just be honest and cache owners could trust that if someone claims they've found the cache that they're telling the truth,'

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Geocachers could just be honest and cache owners could trust that if someone claims they've found the cache that they're telling the truth,'

 

Good job I'd finished my coffee by the time I read this or my monitor would have been drenched

[+thebruce0]

56 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Geocachers could just be honest and cache owners could trust that if someone claims they've found the cache that they're telling the truth,'

 

Exactly... there will always be people who try to find ways around the system for their own gain.

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, arisoft said:

Maybe too long. The problem is not abuse but impracticality. This works better with difficult puzzle caches where it is just right that the one who has solved the puzzle can post a find and others should be happy with a note

You're assuming that only one person in the group has solved the puzzle. And you're assuming that "it is just right" that only those who solved the puzzle can post a find.

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

8 hours ago, arisoft said:

Maybe too long. The problem is not abuse but impracticality. This works better with difficult puzzle caches where it is just right that the one who has solved the puzzle can post a find and others should be happy with a note

You're assuming that only one person in the group has solved the puzzle. And you're assuming that "it is just right" that only those who solved the puzzle can post a find.

Additionally, this is altering the requirements to be allowed to log a find online. Puzzles are physical caches that fall under "sign the log" to log online.  If you now require code entry so only people who specifically and directly solve the (hard - by whose standard?) puzzle can log it, you're opening a big big can of fresh fat worms!

[+fizzymagic]

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

That sounds interesting

 

Can you share the GC code please?

 

Yes, it is this one.

[+Team Microdot]

 

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Yes, it is this one.

 

Thanks 

[+arisoft]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

You're assuming that only one person in the group has solved the puzzle. And you're assuming that "it is just right" that only those who solved the puzzle can post a find.

 

It is usual that none of the group has no idea how to solve the mystery part. If code system is used to verify that the user has an unique solution to the puzzle and the unique solution can be used to log the cache only once, it would work as expected to allow log only if you have done the job or asked someone else to do it for you  instead of sharing the results.

Edited May 18, 2018 by arisoft

[+Team Microdot]

59 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It is usual that none of the group has no idea how to solve the mystery part. If code system is used to verify that the user has an unique solution to the puzzle and the unique solution can be used to log the cache only once, it would work as expected to allow log only if you have done the job or asked someone else to do it for you  instead of sharing the results.

 

But the puzzle solution would still be traded and thus it would be a simple enough exercise for each prospective logger to walk through to the end to get their code anyway - they just have to work very slightly harder than they normally would. Or, as you say, one member of the group gets codes for everyone.

[+hal-an-tow]

On 14/05/2018 at 12:24 PM, TeamPintenWippers said:

This has probably been asked before, but didnt know what to look for.

 

What are the communities' thought on requiring a code to log a geocache as found?

So when you place a geocache you can choose to protect the logs with a code which you put in the container then.

 

It's not watertight of course, but it would reduce armchair logging I'd say

 

Hope you are enjoying this  "communities'' thoughts"  , but please don't mistake them for the opinions of the vast number of cachers who either don't bother with the forum or may look in and read a few threads, but would never post for fear of getting in the middle of a pointless shouting match.

 

There are cache listing sites where you can set a codeword confirmation for a find, but a cheat will eventually find a way round any security measure if they have sufficiant time and motivation (think of money counterfeiters,  computer hackers, car thieves) it's a constant arms race for systems to stay one step ahead. So while there are motivated cheats with some mysterious compulsion to log puzzle caches they didn't actually solve and high terrain/difficulty caches they didn't actually get to  ( perhaps they have feelings of inadequacy that need to be assuaged ) there's no sure way to guarantee a find is actually a find.

 

Not a shortcoming of caching, but a sad comment on social norms.

Edited May 18, 2018 by hal-an-tow
I typed "cat" thieves :-)

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/14/2018 at 8:47 AM, jdcb said:

The best way to prevent arm chair logging is placing caches you can easily maintain, and if you suspect an arm chair logger, go out and check the paper logbook in the cache.  

 

Good cache placements are often in the woods where nobody can "easily" maintain them.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 5/18/2018 at 8:16 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Good cache placements are often in the woods where nobody can "easily" maintain them.

 

That kind of depends on where you live.   There are lots of woodsy areas close to where I live and technically I live "in the city" on one of the primary roads that runs through town.   A 10 minute walk could take me to several densely wooded areas and several waterfalls over 30 feet high.   I supposed it depends on how one defines "easily" but I'd think any spot within a 10-15 minute walk from where one can park a car would qualify as easy.  

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/22/2018 at 11:42 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

A 10 minute walk could take me to several densely wooded areas and several waterfalls over 30 feet high.

 

I'm pretty sure most that's not true for most people, or most cachers.