41–50 of 60 posts
I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose I'll be downvoted for this but my unpopular opinion is that I feel like the voting problem is solvable with some combination of decentralized and cryptographic tech. It's just that the people who can solve it don't want to solve it.
Its an active research area, there are proposals like helios https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Voting which check some of the boxes but aren't perfect . I'm sure cryptographers would love to come up with a fully scalable, trustless, verifiable, anonomous, coercion resistant system. But that's a hard set of properties to satisfy especially if nothing is in the physical world. If you allow physical voting places,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about voting is that for the public to trust voting, it needs to be something a general member of the public can understand. That is why paper balloting is such a durable voting mechanism. Pretty well anyone can understand how you would take a stack of paper ballots and decide who got the most votes. From there you just need to maintain a chain of custody where all ballots are monitored by any interested pa…
I understand the argument here, but to play devil's advocate... In the 2020 presidential election, tens of millions of people had trouble understanding how paper ballots worked. I'm not sure the argument about public trust is that durable or cogent at this point.
If we created a cryptographic voting system with homomorphic encryption to preserve privacy, they would be claiming the exact same thing — except in that case, you wouldn't be able to recount the ballots by hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it is solvable. Voting has to satisfy two requirements: 1) Votes must be private and anonymous (i.e. not linked to your identity) 2) Voting must be secure It's easy to satisfy either one of these requirements, but currently impossible to satisfy both.
I would argue that the paper voting doesn't satisfy both conditions either. And while putting a paper in a box is vividly understandable to the average voter, whatever happens to the vote after that point isn't, as evident by the number of people believing that a Texas lawsuit may overturn Michigan election results.
I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
Don't be naive - the transaction is definitely reversible. It's just that enough Important people need to agree it is reversible. If it was an Important person who lost money, or the loss was big enough to be bad PR, they would hard fork the chain and pretend like the transaction never happened.
Wallets should do more to prevent these types of sends from occuring, providing warnings. But you should also never ever send $50K without a test transaction of some token amount first.
I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
I suppose I'll be downvoted for this but my unpopular opinion is that I feel like the voting problem is solvable with some combination of decentralized and cryptographic tech. It's just that the people who can solve it don't want to solve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they do. That is a feature, not a bug. It gives digital transactions the same properties as cash. When you hand over $50K in cash to someone, you better make sure you trust that someone. When you send $50K in crypto to an address, you better make sure you trust that address. People have to learn new habits and precautions with crypto. With great power comes great responsibility. Maybe the UI for wallets should d…
When you hand someone cash you can get the cash back. You know the person you can chase them down.
am wondering how do you feel when u understand u lost...
what's happening in your head really... :Ð
what could you perform if you loose the control... :Ð
may we call that the monsterz factory?
Why don't these tech support the oldest trick every financial companies have been doing? They send a cent and see if the recipient received it or not. If the money went through and is secured, then send the rest. Simply by doing this, you could avoid almost all incidents like these.