6 ms·

I don't know what other data might be stored on this chain, could be all kinds of stuff will all kinds of constraints about how it gets updated, but presumably

I don't know what other data might be stored on this chain, could be all kinds of stuff will all kinds of constraints about how it gets updated, but presumably a transaction which changes the state of a presidential candidate to "certified" would not be accepted unless it had signatures from congress. So it would be authorized by PKI. And yes anyone could connect, that would be the whole point--to make it totally unambiguous to any interested party whether or not a given state change re: the machinery of government had occurred. Laws going on and off the books, being renewed or expiring on their own, gps coordinates of national and state borders and updates thereto, that sort of thing. As it is, a sufficiently coordinated cabal of media people could just lie to the rest of us about the election result and we would have no source of truth to compare their lies to. Cutting out those intermediaries (or at least providing something definitive to check them against) would be a good thing. > The same organization could've convened virtually, or by mail, or simply at another location if it became necessary. And in that case, where presumably our leadership is so under threat that they can't safely assemble and have a press conference or whatever, how does the message get out to the rest of us, and how do we authenticate it when it does? I realize that the threat on Jan 6 was not so great, but suppose it was much greater, a permissioned block chain which both leadership and citizens knew how to use would be a helpful thing. Most other technology that you might reach for can only be as trustworthy as its least trustworthy admin, and as we're seeing right now, that admin might be quite untrustworthy indeed.

XorNot 2y ago
> a permissioned block chain Permission by who? Under what authority? Who is hosting the servers this thing sits on? Who has voting rights on it? As soon as your proposing a scenario like: > a sufficiently coordinated cabal of media people could just lie to the rest of us about the election result then why would they not also be able to partition the network links to ensure updates don't propagate? And do you even still have a government if it can't exercise any significant control over it's territory (short answer: no).
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  You can look up how a permissioned blockchain works, it's a whole thing. They're typically restricted access, but they could easily be restricted write, public read, and any member of the public who wants to facilitate propagation and keep an eye on things could run a node. > then why would they not also be able to partition the network links to ensure updates don't propagate? Perhaps they can. Maybe you have to sneak a thumb drive with valid signatures across the network boundary in order to facilitate convergence. But at least your adversaries can't masquerade as you. > And do you even still have a government if it can't exercise any significant control over it's territory Most governments we have today at one point fit that description. The utility of resilience in the face of adversaries that can tamper with your ability to coordinate is not diminished if you're losing the fight.

XorNot 2y ago

> a permissioned block chain Permission by who? Under what authority? Who is hosting the servers this thing sits on? Who has voting rights on it? As soon as your proposing a scenario like: > a sufficiently coordinated cabal of media people could just lie to the rest of us about the election result then why would they not also be able to partition the network links to ensure updates don't propagate? And do you even still have a government if it can't exercise any significant control over it's territory (short answer: no).

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
You can look up how a permissioned blockchain works, it's a whole thing. They're typically restricted access, but they could easily be restricted write, public read, and any member of the public who wants to facilitate propagation and keep an eye on things could run a node. > then why would they not also be able to partition the network links to ensure updates don't propagate? Perhaps they can. Maybe you have to sneak a thumb drive with valid signatures across the network boundary in order to facilitate convergence. But at least your adversaries can't masquerade as you. > And do you even still have a government if it can't exercise any significant control over it's territory Most governments we have today at one point fit that description. The utility of resilience in the face of adversaries that can tamper with your ability to coordinate is not diminished if you're losing the fight.