Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DemocracyOS

democracyos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: DemocracyOS

#31

Post by yourad_io »

This is amazing. I have dreamt of a system like this and armchair-proposed it to friends countless times. I am always faced with derision in such conversations[1] - but I believe that a secure implementation of such an idea could be the future of democracy.

Or rather, its past. Ancient Greek democracy wasn't perfect (slavery; not everyone was citizen) but it was much better than our current system of professional politicians and uber-powerful political parties and lobbies.

The small, first struggle will be to implement it as securely as possible - for this you'll likely need to distribute specific hardware[2]. The second and largest struggle would be to actually change constitutions and take power away from the organizations that have hoarded it for decades[3].

There is a lot of scepticism in these comments. My infosec and analytical side is obviously going to go into full-attack mode when there is something solid to take apart - BUT for the time being I'd like to say a huge "bravo" to both this team and YC for backing them.

I hope you change the world.

[1] how would it work; why would people care to get involved; execution/implementation issues; fraud; ...

[2] something between RSA tokens and dedicated mobile voting machines

[3] probably centuries

Re: DemocracyOS

#32

Post by r0naa »

lugg wrote: post #21
r0naa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think that it's a relevant analogy to what an operating system does. Like an OS a system of government (like Democracy) manages a collection of physical elements (institutions) and serves as an interface between those and the end-users (citizens.)

That's a metaphor, and its confusing if not mildly infuriating.

A metaphor is a type of analogy, just so you know. Also, could you elaborate on what is so infuriating?

Re: DemocracyOS

#34

Post by santisiri »

yourad_io wrote: post #31

This is amazing. I have dreamt of a system like this and armchair-proposed it to friends countless times. I am always faced with derision in such conversations[1] - but I believe that a secure implementation of such an idea could be the future of democracy. Or rather, its past. Ancient Greek democracy wasn't perfect (slavery; not everyone was citizen) but it was much better than our current system of professional pol…

We are asking for funding so we can develop a blockchain-compatibility module for our app here: https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/elections/entries/bl...

The work on security is very challenging but this MUST be a large open source effort.

Check our code here: github.com/democracyos/app

Re: DemocracyOS

#35

Post by piamancini »

striking wrote: post #5

What about the monitoring and modification of online communities by the GCHQ? This doesn't even look resistant to that. Also, what about traditional ballot stuffing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100#Hacking anyone? I could only trust this if there were attached a mathematical proof of its usability. Otherwise, I kind of doubt it's worth anyone's time.

We are working to validate democracyOS votes with the blockchain. Happy to listen to any other suggestions

Re: DemocracyOS

#37

Post by rbf_ »

jtmurphy wrote: post #17
wyager wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't defend against tyranny of the majority; it just requires a larger majority. In the USA we defend against tyranny of the majority with the constitution. The constitution places strict limits on what the majority can do to the minority through governmental force.

I agree with wyager. A political system should be a strong constitution that defines the rights of individuals. Something like DemocracyOS should be used to engage the population into ensuring that political actions are in fact constitutional and just.

I think what we really need is ConstitutionalRepublicOS which would be a bit more complicated. But by defining strong constitutional invariants with regard to individual rights perhaps we could pre-strikedown unconstitutional laws before they are enacted. That would require a more precise legal language that let's you run some kind of static analysis against against the laws however.

Re: DemocracyOS

#39

Post by unicornporn »

jlgosse wrote: post #20
broodbucket wrote: post #10

As with others, I am really struggling to see why this has "OS" in the name. It's not an operating system. I'm guessing it stands for "open source", which isn't really an acronym people use in favour of OSS/FOSS (probably because OS already has a very well established meaning). Can someone share some insight on the naming decision?

Agreed, why not just choose "Democracy"?

Because the domain will be expensive?

Re: DemocracyOS

#40

Post by alecco »

Very questionable people behind it (close second hand). All hype and self promotion. Zero experience. Shunned often in most online forums in Argentina, save TedX. I really don't get how YC decided to back this project.
Post reply on HN