3 ms·

> That seems to be an extraordinary claim, and I'm skeptical that 1) it's true, and 2) that's all that's missing. Are you aware of how decentralized computers

> That seems to be an extraordinary claim, and I'm skeptical that 1) it's true, and 2) that's all that's missing. Are you aware of how decentralized computers work? Every computation can be verified by every participant. It's objectively true that such a platform would be less prone to being rigged.

kstrauser 3y ago
And completely horrible for anyone who values anonymous voting. For instance, under no circumstances, ever, do I want it to be possible for guys with machine guys to show up at my door and "help" me verify that I voted "for the right person". Any proposal that would make that possible is a human rights disaster and can be dismissed.
- xvector 3y ago
  What makes you think voting would be non-anonymous? Of course it could be anonymous. Your understanding of cryptography as it related to decentralized systems seems to be limited, and you're reaching wildly misinformed conclusions. You have a strong opinion about decentralized systems being bad and haven't bothered to actually learn the area before making statements like this. Monero is an example of an anonymous decentralized system. There are plenty of anonymous decentralized systems and nothing precludes a system with proof of personhood also being anonymous.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    I understand very well how all this works. I just think it’s a bad idea. You can’t have vote verification and anonymity at the same time. Either your vote goes into the anonymous, aggregated pool of all votes, or it’s possible for you to look yours up afterward to make sure it was recorded directly. That latter option has fire real-world consequences, and any system that allows someone (and especially the people looking over their shoulder) to see their choices is dead on arrival. The ability to verify votes after casting them isn’t just unneeded: it’s completely unwanted. It’s the sort of thing that gets people killed, and that’s not hyperbole.

kstrauser 3y ago

And completely horrible for anyone who values anonymous voting. For instance, under no circumstances, ever, do I want it to be possible for guys with machine guys to show up at my door and "help" me verify that I voted "for the right person". Any proposal that would make that possible is a human rights disaster and can be dismissed.

xvector 3y ago
What makes you think voting would be non-anonymous? Of course it could be anonymous. Your understanding of cryptography as it related to decentralized systems seems to be limited, and you're reaching wildly misinformed conclusions. You have a strong opinion about decentralized systems being bad and haven't bothered to actually learn the area before making statements like this. Monero is an example of an anonymous decentralized system. There are plenty of anonymous decentralized systems and nothing precludes a system with proof of personhood also being anonymous.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I understand very well how all this works. I just think it’s a bad idea. You can’t have vote verification and anonymity at the same time. Either your vote goes into the anonymous, aggregated pool of all votes, or it’s possible for you to look yours up afterward to make sure it was recorded directly. That latter option has fire real-world consequences, and any system that allows someone (and especially the people looking over their shoulder) to see their choices is dead on arrival. The ability to verify votes after casting them isn’t just unneeded: it’s completely unwanted. It’s the sort of thing that gets people killed, and that’s not hyperbole.