3 ms·

> So we're trusting the voting machines? Maybe. I'm not married to much - I'm just defending that voting is one of the rare cases where I think blockchain has

> So we're trusting the voting machines? Maybe. I'm not married to much - I'm just defending that voting is one of the rare cases where I think blockchain has value. We currently trust the voting machines, so even if we do it with the voting machines, it's still an improvement on what we're currently doing. > But if there's no 'voter identity' in the system at all, what's stopping a malicious government from just synthesising the whole blockchain? Not much! So we either have to allow individuals voters to get a receipt and verify their votes (which can introduce problems), or we have to print paper receipts which are kept on site. Yes, those can be printed out as a bad actor synthesizes a new blockchain, but paper ballots can be faked, too. To me, the mission is creating an easily auditable voting record, which we do not have now.

MaxBarraclough 9y ago
> We currently trust the voting machines Indeed, and that's a huge mistake. Should have stuck with paper ballot. The high-tech solution isn't always better. In this case, it seems pretty clear that it's far worse. The Diebold voting machines, for instance, have been shown to be a joke. I like Scheneier's idea that perhaps machines could have some value as supplemental machinery to a paper ballot https://www.schneier.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=voting&__mode=tag&IncludeBlogs=2&limit=10&page=1 https://www.schneier.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=vot... > I'm just defending that voting is one of the rare cases where I think blockchain has value > the mission is creating an easily auditable voting record I don't see any link between these two. I'm not convinced there'd be any value in a blockchain. > paper ballots can be faked, too But it's far harder to do so at scale than with voting machines, particularly if the voting machines are poorly implemented, which they invariably are.

MaxBarraclough 9y ago

> We currently trust the voting machines Indeed, and that's a huge mistake. Should have stuck with paper ballot. The high-tech solution isn't always better. In this case, it seems pretty clear that it's far worse. The Diebold voting machines, for instance, have been shown to be a joke. I like Scheneier's idea that perhaps machines could have some value as supplemental machinery to a paper ballot https://www.schneier.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=voting&__mode=tag&IncludeBlogs=2&limit=10&page=1 https://www.schneier.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=vot... > I'm just defending that voting is one of the rare cases where I think blockchain has value > the mission is creating an easily auditable voting record I don't see any link between these two. I'm not convinced there'd be any value in a blockchain. > paper ballots can be faked, too But it's far harder to do so at scale than with voting machines, particularly if the voting machines are poorly implemented, which they invariably are.