Is Blockchain Technology Going to Disrupt Our Political System: We Hope So

That said, We're talking about digital voting here (or at least I was) and the comparison is to a digital centralized solution, in which browser history, cookies, server logs, and not to mention the database itself has issues that can compromise the voter and the election.

The key system, wouldn't necessary have to work that way (you could have a derivative id or something like that, the system could automatically assign tokens each election without the need for manual distribution, you can throw away the temporary key, etc..). It's a open problem though, and it's good to bring these critiques up and think about solutions, I woudln't dismiss the whole thing though on the first problem found, it's easy to criticise but most technologies do have issues initially that need to be solved (and that's part of the fun). What's so interesting about decentralization technologies is that they open new possibilities and novel solutions to old problems.

I won't accuse you of not understanding humans since it seems none of us do (and it drives us mad!) but I think it's fairly clear what an ideal society looks like: Free.

Now do we want to accomplish this with thought policing (something we've been trying to build forever and we're getting closer) or by giving individuals more responsibility along with the education needed to handle it. For me that is the only question.

Edit: I realize the irony of calling a thought policed society free but the Utopian vision of authoritarians is one where they can destroy all the people and knowledge that don't fit with their vision and thereby reach a 'steady state'. Libertarians definitely have the harder problem to solve: Creating a fundamentally agnostic society.

The point is that both complete authority and complete liberty are unsolved problemsm, but we (as a society) seem to be much more excited to solve the first one. This worries me and others like me and so we say "Hey what about we use all of our amazing technology to answer that second question instead" - it really rubs me the wrong way when the answers we get are some defeatist attitude about 'human nature' and the impossibility of equality.

I recommend reading 'The Dominant Man: The pecking order of human society' for some interesting perspectives on human nature. There's no doubt in my mind that we can design a decentralized global society where the only hierarchy is the one we naturally (read: unconsciously) establish within our tribes.

I won't accuse you of not understanding humans since it seems none of us do (and it drives us mad!) but I think it's fairly clear what an ideal society looks like: Free.

Now do we want to accomplish this with thought policing (something we've been trying to build forever and we're getting closer) or by giving individuals more responsibility along with the education needed to handle it. For me that is the only question.

The point is that both complete authority and complete liberty are unsolved problemsm, but we (as a society) seem to be much more excited to solve the first one. This worries me and others like me and so we say "Hey what about we use all of our amazing technology to answer that second question instead" - it really rubs me the wrong way when the answers we get are some defeatist attitude about 'human nature' and the impossibility of equality.

I recommend reading 'The Dominant Man: The pecking order of human society' for some interesting perspectives on human nature. There's no doubt in my mind that we can design a decentralized global society where the only hierarchy is the one we naturally (read: unconsciously) establish within our tribes.

You won't be able to just do things using your internal assumptions of "how normal people work". That way of thinking will end, outside of some traditionalist preserves. Social norms were necessary for basic economic and legal coordination before we had communications networks. They're being replaced for those functions. They'll be kept on for more limit use in actual social interactions.

Can you specify precisely how those work to prevent this problem? Remember, this is harder than trying to prevent a third-party from identifying users because the system has to survive collusion by the user.