They think they are above the law: the firms who own America's voting system

Post by nameless912 » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #23

nameless912 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herein lies the rub with blockchain systems. If they're public, they're attackable, and if they're private, they're slower, more power hungry, and less flexible than a plain old database. It's not a dumb question, but blockchain doesn't provide good answers :)

I'm no fan of the blockchain, but this may be in the middle ground where blockchain makes sense: multiple independent trusted-but-not-completely parties verifying each other's actions.

Post by gcb0 » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #7

mi100hael wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is one of the very few use-cases I can think of where Blockchain would actually be a valuable and differentiating addition.

Im a blockchain noob, but if the election was driven by blockchain, how would one protect against Chinese mining warehouses trying to gain control of the network? What would a double spend attack look like? Again, just a blockchain noob asking noob questions

Post by joshfraser » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #28

joshfraser wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pseudo-anonymous like Bitcoin. You would keep the mapping between public keys and real-world identities private. But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. Statistically, the public voters should be in line with the final outcome.

> But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. This has the same problem. Didn't waive your right to privacy and provably vote for the right candidate - you're fired (or worse). That's why taking photos of a ballot isn't allowed, you can't have any way to show who you voted for.

Post by hannasanarion » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #35

School-Cotton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s even possible to waive anonymity, people will try to entice or coerce others to vote in a certain way, and require they prove it. That’s why taking a picture of your ballot is illegal in the US. This isn’t just a theoretical concern - there are various real-life allegations of it happening, in Southeastern Europe and other places.

Meh, the concern of the integrity of the election itself is a thousand or a million times more pressing than the concern about somebody trying to coerce somebody. Plus such coercion isn't impossible now, like you said it can be done with a camera. Presumably if you're being coerced by threat the "illegal" doesn't really help you at all. It seems obscene to me to pass up such an obvious improvement like a verifiable r…

Post by joshfraser » Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #21

joshfraser wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pseudo-anonymous like Bitcoin. You would keep the mapping between public keys and real-world identities private. But perhaps some percentage of people would choose to waive their right to privacy, further strengthening trust in the system. Statistically, the public voters should be in line with the final outcome.

I suppose every election they could randomly distribute voter ids that are unique to that election? Ie, pull an I'd from a hat at the polling station then use it and keep it for verification? Edit: undo auto'correct'