7 ms·

This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Suppose all winners of every lottery were anonymous -- how would you know the lotteries

by tabeth 9y ago

This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Suppose all winners of every lottery were anonymous -- how would you know the lotteries are even legit? 1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them. In addition, without total transparency you couldn't have confidence in what they're saying, anyway. It's too easy for them to lie. 2. Perhaps the real winners name would be in some book somewhere, e.g. a tax log, but the real name is out of public sight. This would also be easy to rig. If it's anonymous what's stopping the lottery commission and state government from creating a fake winner? 3. Perhaps the biggest argument in favor of a pro-anonymous lottery is that you already can be anonymous by setting up a trust. This is true, but doesn't answer the question -- how do you know it's legit? Maybe we should just cap the winnings at 10K, an amount that people wouldn't bug you so much for and change the odds such that the revenue the state gets is the same. Then everyone wins, no? So, in this case, instead of a single winner of 580M you could've had 60 thousand people win 10K instead. Sounds pretty good. An amount high enough that you'd give it a shot for a buck, but not so high that you'd annoy them if they won.

CGamesPlay 9y ago
> 1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them. This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Can't you apply this argument to any financial gain you could get from the government? e.g. "You might argue that auditors and other government officials would force people to pay taxes. However, it would be trivial to bribe them."
- tabeth 9y ago
  Apologies for my cynicism, but given that this happens pretty frequently [1] I can't ignore the incentives when dealing with such large amounts of money. [1] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_credit_bribery_scheme_deta.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_cre... [2] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-army-contractor-indicted-0302-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-a... [3] http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-convicted-of-bribery-fraud/19410216 http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-... Transparency is a good way of preventing corruption. I don't have a citation off hand, but I'm pretty confident that this is true. I'll dig one up if you're curious.
  - CGamesPlay 9y ago
    I still am not sure that "trivial" is the right level to rate the ability to bribe government officials is at. After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. Thinking about what the collusion would look like here, I think faking the drawing (which is a well-publicized event) is more difficult than having a ticket printed after the numbers are drawn. In the latter case, who has to be "in on it" for it to succeed? It seems like an audit trail on each ticket would be sufficient, proving the time that it was purchased. It seems like this would require a lot of forged evidence in order to successfully pull off that scheme, and it doesn't require that the audit log be publicly disclosed. Or at least, who is the winner of the lottery hidden from? Is it hidden from the IRS? Is it hidden from the disbursement department at the lottery? Is it hidden from the issuer of the original lottery ticket? These all represent groups of people who you would have to buy out in order to successfully collude.
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      > After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. This logic is flawed. Any time you hear about someone getting caught, there are additional instances in which someone got away with it. You don’t read about a murderer getting caught and conclude that the problem of murder is not in effect.
    - doorbumper 9y ago
      Trivial appears to be the right word. In the linked cases of bribery government officials were bribed for a hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When public officials are bribed, they all tend to be in that ballpark. What happens when you can offer dozens of millions of dollars, or a hundred million or more to the right official? Most likely, no one would ever need to offer that high of a number.
- eli 9y ago
  I mean, isn't that why property tax assessments are public record most places?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Yet, income tax filings are not - at least in the United States. (A number of European countries function just fine with public tax records, though.)
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Yes, which is why we need a transparent government. The only way to win the fight against corruption is to shine a light on it.
- acct1771 9y ago
  ...governmental integrity? Very curious what nation you reside in.
- Bud 9y ago
  You need to read up a bit on recent history if you think there is any record of "integrity" in this field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Lotto_fraud_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Lotto_fraud_scandal
- drawkbox 9y ago
  > This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Government is a group of humans, we know that human nature says probabilistically that anything with lots of value/gain that isn't regulated, measured or public/validated will probably be manipulated by a certain percentage of people for various reasons. When out of view and no chance to get caught, greed is a natural part of some people if not all. Government and police for instance are composed of humans, and can easily be compromised if the price is right and it is easy to hide. Anything out of view and of value will be manipulated. If you say, Why why? tell 'em that it's human nature...
mobilefriendly 9y ago
This case is actually far more narrow in scope-- unlike most states, NH allows private trusts to receive the award, but the woman had already signed her real name to the ticket (the standard advice since the ticket is essentially a bearer bond). Most states don't allow a trust to claim the winnings. So this case is more about the spirit of NH law applying to her situation.
stonemetal 9y ago
What do you see as the difference between a trust and the person as far as transparency goes?
- tabeth 9y ago
  A trust is obviously less transparent, but marginally preferable to full anonymity.
dfrey 9y ago
A $10K lottery is a horrible idea. Most people know that on average you will lose money by buying lottery tickets. What makes it worth playing (for some people) is the (very small) chance of winning fuck you money. If I win $10k, I would be excited and happy about it, but it's going to have very little long-term effect on my lifestyle.
- bluedino 9y ago
  People play 4-digit and 3-digit as well as the scratch offs that win $10k and smaller prizes
- tabeth 9y ago
  I won't say that I thought about the numbers too much, so I'd agree that it's a "horrible" idea, however I want to point out a few things: > Most people know that on average you will lose money I don't think most people know this. Perhaps you do. Perhaps most of us here on HN know, but I strongly doubt most people who play do, given that most people who play are poor [1]. > What makes it worth playing... This isn't true either. Most people who play play it for the smaller winners [1]. Finally, I just want to reiterate that the point of this is exactly what you mentioned. By making the amount small enough such that it wouldn't have a huge effect on your lifestyle, you make it safer to disclose who won. [1] https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/1/13/10763268/lottery-poor-prey https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/1/13/10763268/lottery-po...
  - lwansbrough 9y ago
    > I don't think most people know this. You don't think most people know they're gambling when they buy a lottery ticket?
    - adventured 9y ago
      I grew up around some businesses that sold various lottery products. I'm not trying to sound mean or dismissive at all when I say this, just strictly matter of fact: I talked to a large and incredible variety of idiots and uneducated people that bought lottery tickets, whether scratch-offs or traditional Powerball type. They all universally knew the odds were bad. Universally. They also figured that for a few dollars - which most of them could easily afford here and there - those were the best odds they were ever going to have.
ralfn 9y ago
In Dutch we have a saying: As is the inkeeper does he trust his guests. I'm always surprised by this pattern of extreme paranoia. In most of the world lottery winners are anonymous, because people wouldn't even consider cheating with this sort of thing. It would just not come to their mind. Perhaps because we don't all default to immediately assume the worst of each other? Because that pattern of thinking makes it easier to morally justify when you screw some one over as well. If enough people think somebody would cheat like this, enough people would have the moral flexibility to cheat.
- refurb 9y ago
  Are you arguing lottery fraud is rare? Seems pretty common to me and not just in the US.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    How do you even rig the lottery? If the numbers are drawn the usual way (machine, spinning drum, balls) you'd have to use weighted balls, but of course the weights are checked before and after and the balls are in strict custody. But in the US, where even the elections are computerized, anything is possible.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      relevant: https://priceonomics.com/the-mcdonalds-monopoly-fraud/ https://priceonomics.com/the-mcdonalds-monopoly-fraud/
      - Hnrobert42 9y ago
        That link is not at all relevant to a lottery of balls drawn from a hopper.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      One famous example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_sc...
mikeash 9y ago
One potential solution is to have an independent third party verify that the winner is legitimate and not linked to the lottery agency. The judge is essentially playing that role here.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  I think the commenters point is that with even a few tens of millions of dollars you could buy any 3rd party off.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    The identity of the auditors would be public information and they would be under a lot of scrutiny. They would have to go through a lot of trouble to launder any bribe money they received. What use is a few million dollars if you can only spend it as petty cash?
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Judges being a great example. There are huge incentives to influence them, but they’re generally pretty hard to buy off.
      - noir_lord 9y ago
        And the penalties for doing so are draconian and applied by a different judge and historically judges frown on attempts to subvert the judiciary.
dpweb 9y ago
Blockchain? - Public source code program used to pick a random winner among public keys. - Private key holder has access to the winnings. - Govt takes their taxes before disbursing the funds. - Everyone can verify funds were disbursed. - Winner can stay anonymous.
- tomcatfish 9y ago
  Verifying disbursement doesn't verify the program run actually picked a fair winner. The parts left out of your bullet points are what the other posters are discussing.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    That's a strange criticism. Once everything is online, there are verifiably fair ways to pick a winner at random.
    - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
      How? PRNGs come to mind, but they need a true random seed - something like a lava-lamp, but who controls the lava-lamp? Doesn’t a distributed, transparent system naturally lead to a deterministic system?
      - gibybo 9y ago
        You can just use the last x bits of hashes for the last y blocks to generate a random number.
        fgonzag 9y ago
        If you have the seed and the algorithm for the PRNG before the random number is drawn, then anyone can calculate it and pick the number. The seed would have to be picked as the number is drawn if the system is public.
        9y ago
jack9 9y ago
> a tax log, but the real name is out of public sight of course all of the money is tracked by the IRS and state.
jkaplowitz 9y ago
Regarding your point #2: I'm pretty sure that even anonymous winners of lottery prizes are identified in some way to the applicable US / state / local tax authorities, when the prize is $600 or more. For those sorts of prizes, US federal law requires the payor to collect a taxpayer identification number, to file an IRS Form W-2G with the federal government, and to furnish a copy of that form to the payee. Therefore they can ensure that taxes get paid on it. Now, the payee on Form W-2G can be a trust or a legal entity - they get taxpayer identification numbers just like individuals do. But if the government doesn't see a tax return come through corresponding to a $560 million lottery jackpot, you can be sure the IRS will use all their investigative power, including the ability to pierce through the entity to the humans responsible for it, to track that down. The main point of lotto anonymity is to hide from unwanted public harassment and invasions of privacy, not from paying taxes.
txsh 9y ago
What makes you believe any lottery is legit even when we are given names?
fred_is_fred 9y ago
One counter example is that knowing names didn't stop collusion in the past - in 2016 someone was arrested for setting up their brother to win: http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lottery-insiders-brother-arrested-in-jackpot-fixing-scandal-2016-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lottery-insiders-brother-a...
sschueller 9y ago
You don't need the name of the winner. You need to verify the drawing is not rigged, the machines printing the ticket etc. But who in the end has the ticket is irrelevant.
dnautics 9y ago
Don't let the winners keep private, but put a label on the ticket saying in big letters that you can't keep your winning the lottery private.
intopieces 9y ago
The solution is even simpler: abolish lotteries altogether. They are a tax on the poor and a fraud on the taxpayers.
- iratewizard 9y ago
  Easy in theory, but you can't just abolish the gambler's mentality. Cunning people with a loose moral compass will find a way.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    The government ought not be sanctioning it by saying things like "the money that we get goes towards schools" (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/07/hey-texplainer-does-lottery-fully-fund-public-education/ https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/07/hey-texplainer-does-...).
    - joeblow9999 9y ago
      Indeed. This is indeed a scam. Well maybe not a scam but at least a prevarication. Government of all entities should not be engaging in tricks like this. All the monies are fungible. "This money goes to schools, this money goes to road" is a farce.
- joeblow9999 9y ago
  Just because you don't want to take that risk doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to do so.
technofiend 9y ago
>This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowdsourced validation process, right? But how do you prevent collusion and abuse by the general public if they're really part of the validation process? Both have the same solution - you need trusted parties to validate the process, people who were themselves validated and vetted to do the work. Isn't that already in place? I believe so.

by tabeth 9y ago

CGamesPlay 9y ago

> 1. You might argue that auditors and other government officials would enforce integrity. However, it would be trivial to bribe them. This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Can't you apply this argument to any financial gain you could get from the government? e.g. "You might argue that auditors and other government officials would force people to pay taxes. However, it would be trivial to bribe them."

tabeth 9y ago
Apologies for my cynicism, but given that this happens pretty frequently [1] I can't ignore the incentives when dealing with such large amounts of money. [1] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_credit_bribery_scheme_deta.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_cre... [2] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-army-contractor-indicted-0302-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-a... [3] http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-convicted-of-bribery-fraud/19410216 http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-... Transparency is a good way of preventing corruption. I don't have a citation off hand, but I'm pretty confident that this is true. I'll dig one up if you're curious.
- CGamesPlay 9y ago
  I still am not sure that "trivial" is the right level to rate the ability to bribe government officials is at. After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. Thinking about what the collusion would look like here, I think faking the drawing (which is a well-publicized event) is more difficult than having a ticket printed after the numbers are drawn. In the latter case, who has to be "in on it" for it to succeed? It seems like an audit trail on each ticket would be sufficient, proving the time that it was purchased. It seems like this would require a lot of forged evidence in order to successfully pull off that scheme, and it doesn't require that the audit log be publicly disclosed. Or at least, who is the winner of the lottery hidden from? Is it hidden from the IRS? Is it hidden from the disbursement department at the lottery? Is it hidden from the issuer of the original lottery ticket? These all represent groups of people who you would have to buy out in order to successfully collude.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. This logic is flawed. Any time you hear about someone getting caught, there are additional instances in which someone got away with it. You don’t read about a murderer getting caught and conclude that the problem of murder is not in effect.
  - doorbumper 9y ago
    Trivial appears to be the right word. In the linked cases of bribery government officials were bribed for a hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When public officials are bribed, they all tend to be in that ballpark. What happens when you can offer dozens of millions of dollars, or a hundred million or more to the right official? Most likely, no one would ever need to offer that high of a number.
eli 9y ago
I mean, isn't that why property tax assessments are public record most places?
- vkou 9y ago
  Yet, income tax filings are not - at least in the United States. (A number of European countries function just fine with public tax records, though.)
lotsofpulp 9y ago
Yes, which is why we need a transparent government. The only way to win the fight against corruption is to shine a light on it.
acct1771 9y ago
...governmental integrity? Very curious what nation you reside in.
Bud 9y ago
You need to read up a bit on recent history if you think there is any record of "integrity" in this field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Lotto_fraud_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Lotto_fraud_scandal
drawkbox 9y ago
> This seems like a very casual way to dismiss governmental integrity. Government is a group of humans, we know that human nature says probabilistically that anything with lots of value/gain that isn't regulated, measured or public/validated will probably be manipulated by a certain percentage of people for various reasons. When out of view and no chance to get caught, greed is a natural part of some people if not all. Government and police for instance are composed of humans, and can easily be compromised if the price is right and it is easy to hide. Anything out of view and of value will be manipulated. If you say, Why why? tell 'em that it's human nature...

mobilefriendly 9y ago

This case is actually far more narrow in scope-- unlike most states, NH allows private trusts to receive the award, but the woman had already signed her real name to the ticket (the standard advice since the ticket is essentially a bearer bond). Most states don't allow a trust to claim the winnings. So this case is more about the spirit of NH law applying to her situation.

stonemetal 9y ago

What do you see as the difference between a trust and the person as far as transparency goes?

tabeth 9y ago
A trust is obviously less transparent, but marginally preferable to full anonymity.

dfrey 9y ago

A $10K lottery is a horrible idea. Most people know that on average you will lose money by buying lottery tickets. What makes it worth playing (for some people) is the (very small) chance of winning fuck you money. If I win $10k, I would be excited and happy about it, but it's going to have very little long-term effect on my lifestyle.

bluedino 9y ago
People play 4-digit and 3-digit as well as the scratch offs that win $10k and smaller prizes
tabeth 9y ago
I won't say that I thought about the numbers too much, so I'd agree that it's a "horrible" idea, however I want to point out a few things: > Most people know that on average you will lose money I don't think most people know this. Perhaps you do. Perhaps most of us here on HN know, but I strongly doubt most people who play do, given that most people who play are poor [1]. > What makes it worth playing... This isn't true either. Most people who play play it for the smaller winners [1]. Finally, I just want to reiterate that the point of this is exactly what you mentioned. By making the amount small enough such that it wouldn't have a huge effect on your lifestyle, you make it safer to disclose who won. [1] https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/1/13/10763268/lottery-poor-prey https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/1/13/10763268/lottery-po...
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  > I don't think most people know this. You don't think most people know they're gambling when they buy a lottery ticket?
  - adventured 9y ago
    I grew up around some businesses that sold various lottery products. I'm not trying to sound mean or dismissive at all when I say this, just strictly matter of fact: I talked to a large and incredible variety of idiots and uneducated people that bought lottery tickets, whether scratch-offs or traditional Powerball type. They all universally knew the odds were bad. Universally. They also figured that for a few dollars - which most of them could easily afford here and there - those were the best odds they were ever going to have.

ralfn 9y ago

In Dutch we have a saying: As is the inkeeper does he trust his guests. I'm always surprised by this pattern of extreme paranoia. In most of the world lottery winners are anonymous, because people wouldn't even consider cheating with this sort of thing. It would just not come to their mind. Perhaps because we don't all default to immediately assume the worst of each other? Because that pattern of thinking makes it easier to morally justify when you screw some one over as well. If enough people think somebody would cheat like this, enough people would have the moral flexibility to cheat.

refurb 9y ago
Are you arguing lottery fraud is rare? Seems pretty common to me and not just in the US.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  How do you even rig the lottery? If the numbers are drawn the usual way (machine, spinning drum, balls) you'd have to use weighted balls, but of course the weights are checked before and after and the balls are in strict custody. But in the US, where even the elections are computerized, anything is possible.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    relevant: https://priceonomics.com/the-mcdonalds-monopoly-fraud/ https://priceonomics.com/the-mcdonalds-monopoly-fraud/
    - Hnrobert42 9y ago
      That link is not at all relevant to a lottery of balls drawn from a hopper.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    One famous example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_sc...

mikeash 9y ago

One potential solution is to have an independent third party verify that the winner is legitimate and not linked to the lottery agency. The judge is essentially playing that role here.

Klathmon 9y ago
I think the commenters point is that with even a few tens of millions of dollars you could buy any 3rd party off.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  The identity of the auditors would be public information and they would be under a lot of scrutiny. They would have to go through a lot of trouble to launder any bribe money they received. What use is a few million dollars if you can only spend it as petty cash?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Judges being a great example. There are huge incentives to influence them, but they’re generally pretty hard to buy off.
    - noir_lord 9y ago
      And the penalties for doing so are draconian and applied by a different judge and historically judges frown on attempts to subvert the judiciary.

dpweb 9y ago

Blockchain? - Public source code program used to pick a random winner among public keys. - Private key holder has access to the winnings. - Govt takes their taxes before disbursing the funds. - Everyone can verify funds were disbursed. - Winner can stay anonymous.

tomcatfish 9y ago
Verifying disbursement doesn't verify the program run actually picked a fair winner. The parts left out of your bullet points are what the other posters are discussing.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  That's a strange criticism. Once everything is online, there are verifiably fair ways to pick a winner at random.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    How? PRNGs come to mind, but they need a true random seed - something like a lava-lamp, but who controls the lava-lamp? Doesn’t a distributed, transparent system naturally lead to a deterministic system?
    - gibybo 9y ago
      You can just use the last x bits of hashes for the last y blocks to generate a random number.
      - fgonzag 9y ago
        If you have the seed and the algorithm for the PRNG before the random number is drawn, then anyone can calculate it and pick the number. The seed would have to be picked as the number is drawn if the system is public.
        9y ago

jack9 9y ago

> a tax log, but the real name is out of public sight of course all of the money is tracked by the IRS and state.

jkaplowitz 9y ago

Regarding your point #2: I'm pretty sure that even anonymous winners of lottery prizes are identified in some way to the applicable US / state / local tax authorities, when the prize is $600 or more. For those sorts of prizes, US federal law requires the payor to collect a taxpayer identification number, to file an IRS Form W-2G with the federal government, and to furnish a copy of that form to the payee. Therefore they can ensure that taxes get paid on it. Now, the payee on Form W-2G can be a trust or a legal entity - they get taxpayer identification numbers just like individuals do. But if the government doesn't see a tax return come through corresponding to a $560 million lottery jackpot, you can be sure the IRS will use all their investigative power, including the ability to pierce through the entity to the humans responsible for it, to track that down. The main point of lotto anonymity is to hide from unwanted public harassment and invasions of privacy, not from paying taxes.

txsh 9y ago

What makes you believe any lottery is legit even when we are given names?

fred_is_fred 9y ago

One counter example is that knowing names didn't stop collusion in the past - in 2016 someone was arrested for setting up their brother to win: http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lottery-insiders-brother-arrested-in-jackpot-fixing-scandal-2016-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lottery-insiders-brother-a...

sschueller 9y ago

You don't need the name of the winner. You need to verify the drawing is not rigged, the machines printing the ticket etc. But who in the end has the ticket is irrelevant.

dnautics 9y ago

Don't let the winners keep private, but put a label on the ticket saying in big letters that you can't keep your winning the lottery private.

intopieces 9y ago

The solution is even simpler: abolish lotteries altogether. They are a tax on the poor and a fraud on the taxpayers.

iratewizard 9y ago
Easy in theory, but you can't just abolish the gambler's mentality. Cunning people with a loose moral compass will find a way.
- intopieces 9y ago
  The government ought not be sanctioning it by saying things like "the money that we get goes towards schools" (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/07/hey-texplainer-does-lottery-fully-fund-public-education/ https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/07/hey-texplainer-does-...).
  - joeblow9999 9y ago
    Indeed. This is indeed a scam. Well maybe not a scam but at least a prevarication. Government of all entities should not be engaging in tricks like this. All the monies are fungible. "This money goes to schools, this money goes to road" is a farce.
joeblow9999 9y ago
Just because you don't want to take that risk doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to do so.

technofiend 9y ago

>This is great for the winner, but how would you prevent collusion here? Well the implication here is by publishing the person's name you have a public / crowdsourced validation process, right? But how do you prevent collusion and abuse by the general public if they're really part of the validation process? Both have the same solution - you need trusted parties to validate the process, people who were themselves validated and vetted to do the work. Isn't that already in place? I believe so.