3 ms·

Bitcoin isn't the correct starting point for this as the whole point of verifying blocks via miners is that you can't trust entities in the system to be unique

Bitcoin isn't the correct starting point for this as the whole point of verifying blocks via miners is that you can't trust entities in the system to be unique for each user (i.e. Sybil attack), whereas with a democratic voting system trusting that each user has been given a unique starting key is a core requirement.

cjg 12y ago
I agree that you need to know that voters aren't voting twice (assuming one voter one vote), but that doesn't mean that a blockchain isn't the way forward. If keys are issued / signed centrally, then there's no way to vote more than once.
- nebulous1 12y ago
  So what does the blockchain do?
  - cjg 12y ago
    Provides a public record of votes - anonymous / encrypted or otherwise.
    - nebulous1 12y ago
      That's just a record though. A bitcoin style blockchain would provide a hashing-power based method of deciding which votes count in the case of double voting, which isn't required or even wanted in this case.
      - cjg 12y ago
        It's not just a record. It is public and untamperable, and could form the core of vote verification. I didn't imagine voting to be like spending a bitcoin. Although that could work too. Issue every voter a single indivisible votecoin. To vote for a candidate send the votecoin to their address. But, perhaps the V initiative have something else in mind for the blockchain. I'm sure there are others. I've outlined only two possibilities for using a blockchain here, but I'm sure there will be others.
        nebulous1 12y ago
        You haven't given a reason to use a blockchain, you're just pointing out ways in which you could use a block chain. As I said, why would you rely on a democracy of hashing power for anything when you have unique underlying identities you're trying to let vote? Why use a system designed to allow the decentralized use of a currency without double spending when double spending isn't an issue? The two biggest issues solved by Bitcoin are double spending and distribution of a decentralized currency. Our would-be voting system doesn't need either of these things.

cjg 12y ago

I agree that you need to know that voters aren't voting twice (assuming one voter one vote), but that doesn't mean that a blockchain isn't the way forward. If keys are issued / signed centrally, then there's no way to vote more than once.

nebulous1 12y ago
So what does the blockchain do?
- cjg 12y ago
  Provides a public record of votes - anonymous / encrypted or otherwise.
  - nebulous1 12y ago
    That's just a record though. A bitcoin style blockchain would provide a hashing-power based method of deciding which votes count in the case of double voting, which isn't required or even wanted in this case.
    - cjg 12y ago
      It's not just a record. It is public and untamperable, and could form the core of vote verification. I didn't imagine voting to be like spending a bitcoin. Although that could work too. Issue every voter a single indivisible votecoin. To vote for a candidate send the votecoin to their address. But, perhaps the V initiative have something else in mind for the blockchain. I'm sure there are others. I've outlined only two possibilities for using a blockchain here, but I'm sure there will be others.
      - nebulous1 12y ago
        You haven't given a reason to use a blockchain, you're just pointing out ways in which you could use a block chain. As I said, why would you rely on a democracy of hashing power for anything when you have unique underlying identities you're trying to let vote? Why use a system designed to allow the decentralized use of a currency without double spending when double spending isn't an issue? The two biggest issues solved by Bitcoin are double spending and distribution of a decentralized currency. Our would-be voting system doesn't need either of these things.