4 ms·
Obviously, the features that combat fraud are public attention and immutable history. The most important feature is the history of transactions, which won't be
by sdwr 2y ago
Obviously, the features that combat fraud are public attention and immutable history. The most important feature is the history of transactions, which won't be able to be modified by state employees, even once mistakes are amended.
I'm disappointed that people who should be able to see through the hype, into the actual tech, are falling for the anti-hype in the same reflexive, unthinking manner as those falling for the actual hype.
- tracker1 2y agoDecision makers are more likely to fall for the marketing fluff of the consulting companies pushing this stuff over their own employees telling them they don't need it. Having worked for an election services company, it truly irked me every time "blockchain" was mentioned to solve X problems. Unless you're in an untrusted, adversarial context with multiple parties, blockchain gets you nothing over just regular data signing with public-private keys/certs, but the added problems of latency and compute costs. This is true of most regulatory situations. Blockchain could be something the banks and federal reserve could use for exchanges instead of the existing networks, but that's a very different use case.
- sundbry 2y agoElectronic voting is an untrusted, adversarial context. It seems you are part of the problem there, not the solution.
- solardev 2y agoIndeed, they are some of the least secure systems out there, black boxes where votes go to die. One was run by someone who was proudly fundraising for Bush and later accused of insider trading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wpr... The industry was trying very hard to monopolize before antitrust stopped them. The whole entire industry is a threat to democracy and should be made illegal and replaced with auditable paper trails. Or yes, even a blockchain would be safer, but that wouldn't be anonymous.
- tracker1 2y agoI'm not talking about casting ballot votes... I'm talking about transmission of voter data from the EMS to the printers. Another part, do you REALLY expect the govt to give up control over the servers in the case of voting? If a single organization controls the servers, all access to the servers and all of the entries without public access, it doesn't bring anything adventageous.
- Ferret7446 2y agoSo it's a "real" blockchain aka Merkle chain aka immutable log. That would be quite nice, actually, although the privacy aspect is an open question.