5 ms·

Great, ZKProofs present the possibility for everyone to do better than that with much less work.

• codedokode 5y ago
  With paper voting you can see that there are real people casting votes. With electronic voting it is trivial to add fictious voters and vote for them, especially in countries where voter lists are not published.
• johannes1234321 5y ago
  Less work isn't the optimisation goal, though. Reliability, trust, verifiability, secret ballot, etc. is what it is about. If things can be made more efficient without sacrificing the primary goals ok, but if I as a citizen can't verify the results anymore (by watching the count etc.) the purpose isn't met.
  • mw888 5y ago
    It seems like you don’t and don’t care to, understand.
• gjulianm 5y ago
  Tell that to the people who now, instead of just going to a polling place and placing a paper on an envelope, have to download and store digital certificates, possibly download and install new programs and deal with the troubles of all that, just so "verifying votes" is slightly easier for the minority of people with the knowledge of the system and ZK proofs. Also, you're assuming the system is perfectly implemented. In reality, such a system will be complex, will have many more pieces than the ZK system itself (and those pieces will have vulnerabilities), and will require users to do more which will also be prone to errors and vulnerabilities. I don't understand the insistence on electronic voting for elections. It's less transparent to laypeople, offers small benefits and adds significant complexity both in the implementation and use.
• JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Many in the US think that "they" are lying to us about basic physics so do you think they will accept those proofs?
• eulenteufel 5y ago
  Paper ballots requiring a lot of work is the whole point. This makes tampering at scale a lot more difficult and a lot easier to detect.