3 ms·
I'm inclined to believe many of these reports are biased and still pushing agendas, even if it is out of peoples on lack of understanding of how a blockchain so
by braderhart 9y ago
I'm inclined to believe many of these reports are biased and still pushing agendas, even if it is out of peoples on lack of understanding of how a blockchain solution would actually work. Largely, their inability to think creatively about technical solutions.
- ttoinou 9y agoCurrent e-voting systems don't seem to offer privacy, and security.. (are they even open source ?) But yes a distributed e-voting system based on blockchain or whatever could work and maybe much cheaper as it would only take a few minutes online to vote. The result could be that more referendums would be held more often.
- pjc50 9y agoHome PCs are too easily compromised for this to be really trustworthy, even if you issue all the voters with hardware tokens. It might be achievable with iPhones, but that's rather exclusive. In other words, it's not the backend that's the worry so much as the frontend. (Leaving aside all the blockchain-specific issues)
- specialist 9y agoThere is no electronic voting system, real or imagined, which can guarantee both the secret ballot and the public vote count. Because there is no algorithmic equivalent to the secure one-way hash for dropping physical ballots into a ballot box. Block chains record votes cast in order. Which correlate with the order those same ballots were issued (or received, as with postal ballots). Voila, no more secret ballot. The proposal to fudge the time stamps (chunking, roundoff or jitter) does not work for real world USA elections. Because the smallest administrative unit is the precinct (from 0 to 1000 voters) and ballot casting is bursty (vs spread evenly over time).