5 ms·

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

jammygit 7y ago
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
- forgotmypw3 7y ago
  I don't think blockchain necessarily means anyone being able to make blocks.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    So the important part is the visibility of the blockchain, not the distributed control? One could still verify whether tampering had occurred?
    - forgotmypw3 7y ago
      In my forum project, I use blockchain-like elements in the sense that when one replies to an existing comment, they include its hash in the reply text, which is then PGP-signed. It is not a chain, however, more like a tree/web. And anyone can inspect the tree and re-verify its validity. What is on the tree, however, is decided by me, the webmaster-operator. If there are troll comments that I want removed, they're gone. But I cannot forge something by another user, because I do not have their private key. And anyone else can fork the forum and append to the tree in their own way, and I cannot stop them.
  - joshfraser 7y ago
    Distributed control is still useful. It makes it incredibly expensive to try and tamper with the results.
- orev 7y ago
  Blockchain is not the same thing as cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is just one application of blockchain. Double spend wouldn’t exist because we’re not talking about money, and the voting servers don’t need to be run by random public people. You’re confusing too many things here.
- nameless912 7y ago
  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 :)
  - leereeves 7y ago
    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.
    - nameless912 7y ago
      I still don't buy that blockchain is better than any of the other solutions that we've come up with for this problem, since (like with, for example, byzantine consensus) 50%+1 of actors being misbehaved breaks any security guarantee.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Democracies already have some reliance on trusted authorities, so why not just leverage those and assign the trust of the voting system to those established trusted authorities? Also, blockchains are fun - they are not a magical salve.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    Blockchain in this context just means that everyone signs cryptographic messages, in a public database. That's it.
- joshfraser 7y ago
  Really we're talking about public key encryption. In an ideal scenario, every voter would have a public and a private key. The government would have a list of public keys to determine who is eligible to vote. Each voter would hold their own private keys. Each vote is signed with their private key and then published to an immutable ledger that everyone can audit.
- leereeves 7y ago
  A 51% attack would look like one source submitting a blockchain that's different from everyone else's, and effectively saying "my chain is longer so use it instead". Very noticeable, even if it might end up needing to be sorted out by courts instead of computers.
- gcb0 7y ago
  51% attacks only exist if the clients can fork. if your chain is not forkable (i.e you already know the size for an election thanks to census and voter records) there is no need for it as there is no need for miners even. most other comments in this thread confuses blockchain with cryptocurrencies.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Blockchains have nothing to do with proof of work or mining. There just wouldn't be any mining. "Blockchain" in this context just means that everyone cryptographicly signs messages in a public database.
achenatx 7y ago
all social media (or any system) where you dont trust the entities that are holding your data are candidates for blockchain. With blockchain based databases you can have entities that store massive amounts of data encrypted, but they cant read it or access it. The blockchain controls access to it. The data itself doesnt need to be replicated, just the access control. This resolves the issue of very slow blockchain databases. The storage providers can charge the blockchain for storage and access. blockchain disintermediates access control, storage, and display. With open protocols for data, you could use any number of reader clients to access your (and other) data.

jammygit 7y ago

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

forgotmypw3 7y ago
I don't think blockchain necessarily means anyone being able to make blocks.
- jammygit 7y ago
  So the important part is the visibility of the blockchain, not the distributed control? One could still verify whether tampering had occurred?
  - forgotmypw3 7y ago
    In my forum project, I use blockchain-like elements in the sense that when one replies to an existing comment, they include its hash in the reply text, which is then PGP-signed. It is not a chain, however, more like a tree/web. And anyone can inspect the tree and re-verify its validity. What is on the tree, however, is decided by me, the webmaster-operator. If there are troll comments that I want removed, they're gone. But I cannot forge something by another user, because I do not have their private key. And anyone else can fork the forum and append to the tree in their own way, and I cannot stop them.
- joshfraser 7y ago
  Distributed control is still useful. It makes it incredibly expensive to try and tamper with the results.
orev 7y ago
Blockchain is not the same thing as cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is just one application of blockchain. Double spend wouldn’t exist because we’re not talking about money, and the voting servers don’t need to be run by random public people. You’re confusing too many things here.
nameless912 7y ago
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 :)
- leereeves 7y ago
  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.
  - nameless912 7y ago
    I still don't buy that blockchain is better than any of the other solutions that we've come up with for this problem, since (like with, for example, byzantine consensus) 50%+1 of actors being misbehaved breaks any security guarantee.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Democracies already have some reliance on trusted authorities, so why not just leverage those and assign the trust of the voting system to those established trusted authorities? Also, blockchains are fun - they are not a magical salve.
- stale2002 7y ago
  Blockchain in this context just means that everyone signs cryptographic messages, in a public database. That's it.
joshfraser 7y ago
Really we're talking about public key encryption. In an ideal scenario, every voter would have a public and a private key. The government would have a list of public keys to determine who is eligible to vote. Each voter would hold their own private keys. Each vote is signed with their private key and then published to an immutable ledger that everyone can audit.
leereeves 7y ago
A 51% attack would look like one source submitting a blockchain that's different from everyone else's, and effectively saying "my chain is longer so use it instead". Very noticeable, even if it might end up needing to be sorted out by courts instead of computers.
gcb0 7y ago
51% attacks only exist if the clients can fork. if your chain is not forkable (i.e you already know the size for an election thanks to census and voter records) there is no need for it as there is no need for miners even. most other comments in this thread confuses blockchain with cryptocurrencies.
stale2002 7y ago
Blockchains have nothing to do with proof of work or mining. There just wouldn't be any mining. "Blockchain" in this context just means that everyone cryptographicly signs messages in a public database.

achenatx 7y ago

all social media (or any system) where you dont trust the entities that are holding your data are candidates for blockchain. With blockchain based databases you can have entities that store massive amounts of data encrypted, but they cant read it or access it. The blockchain controls access to it. The data itself doesnt need to be replicated, just the access control. This resolves the issue of very slow blockchain databases. The storage providers can charge the blockchain for storage and access. blockchain disintermediates access control, storage, and display. With open protocols for data, you could use any number of reader clients to access your (and other) data.