5 ms·

Seems like a great application for cryptocurrencies, though maybe better with those using proof of stake rather than proof of work. Distribute one coin to ever

Seems like a great application for cryptocurrencies, though maybe better with those using proof of stake rather than proof of work. Distribute one coin to every citizen (this is the hard part). Each citizen votes anonymously by giving the coin to the candidate of their choice. The network verifies that no coin (vote) is spent (cast) twice. Done.

RankingMember 11y ago
That actually seems like an interesting idea, but I'd like for the public to be able to view the list of unique coins for each candidate and verify theirs went where they wanted it to. Wouldn't the 1-coin-to-1-person connection be vulnerable to manipulation, since you wouldn't want someone (perhaps on the inside) to be able to generate coins and spam-vote?
- IanCal 11y ago
  > That actually seems like an interesting idea, but I'd like for the public to be able to view the list of unique coins for each candidate and verify theirs went where they wanted it to This now means that if you can be forced to give up (or someone knows through other means) your coins "id" then they can see how you voted. This is something there are quite a few laws in place to try and stop with the current voting system, and it's considered to be a very important property.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  At the end, those are three features we want from a voting system: that it's anonymous, verifiable, and that one can not prove what he voted for. Well, they are conflicting features, and we just can't have all three. Paper ballots guarantee none, but people accept it because hacking it is thought to be expensive. That cypto-currency vote, if I got the idea correctly, is verifiable, but fails on anonymity and lack of proof. It may be possible to fix anonymity by some coin-mixing algorithm, but I'm not sure the lack of proof is even possible in practice (for any algorithm). But anyway, remember that paper ballots guarantee none...
IanCal 11y ago
That only solves one part of a large problem. You still have solve * How to stop someone from coercing your vote by being there while you vote * How to distribute the coins evenly * How to ensure that the vote was cast by the person you gave the coin to * How to ensure that nobody can find out who you voted for afterwards
- dmvaldman 11y ago
  Many cryptocurrencies have your last two points as part of their design. For the first one, I see the value in going to a centralized place that has taken measures to make sure there is no coercing involved. Someone with a gun could indeed come to your home, and make you vote for a certain candidate. I don't have a good answer for this, but I do feel that it would be a difficult strategy to pull off, as citizens can vote at any time, from any place. For your second point, this is indeed the hard part. It can be rephrased as: how can you be sure no one was given 2 coins? I also don't have an answer here that doesn't make you associate an SSN or another unique identifier with a wallet address, which would ruin the anonymity feature. Maybe someone else reading has some good ideas to add?
  - hga 11y ago
    "but I do feel that it would be a difficult strategy to pull off, as citizens can vote at any time, from any place" The coercion could and would take the effect of requiring you to vote while the coercier was watching you. If you voted before then, you'd suffer the consequences. This is an absolute bar to on-line voting as far as I'm concerned; in the US it would likely spark the hot civil war we're sliding towards.
    - mattkrisiloff 11y ago
      Is there a difference with absentee ballots?
      - hga 11y ago
        Nope, which is one of the reasons they're the target of many if not most current US voting scams.

RankingMember 11y ago

That actually seems like an interesting idea, but I'd like for the public to be able to view the list of unique coins for each candidate and verify theirs went where they wanted it to. Wouldn't the 1-coin-to-1-person connection be vulnerable to manipulation, since you wouldn't want someone (perhaps on the inside) to be able to generate coins and spam-vote?

IanCal 11y ago
> That actually seems like an interesting idea, but I'd like for the public to be able to view the list of unique coins for each candidate and verify theirs went where they wanted it to This now means that if you can be forced to give up (or someone knows through other means) your coins "id" then they can see how you voted. This is something there are quite a few laws in place to try and stop with the current voting system, and it's considered to be a very important property.
marcosdumay 11y ago
At the end, those are three features we want from a voting system: that it's anonymous, verifiable, and that one can not prove what he voted for. Well, they are conflicting features, and we just can't have all three. Paper ballots guarantee none, but people accept it because hacking it is thought to be expensive. That cypto-currency vote, if I got the idea correctly, is verifiable, but fails on anonymity and lack of proof. It may be possible to fix anonymity by some coin-mixing algorithm, but I'm not sure the lack of proof is even possible in practice (for any algorithm). But anyway, remember that paper ballots guarantee none...

IanCal 11y ago

That only solves one part of a large problem. You still have solve * How to stop someone from coercing your vote by being there while you vote * How to distribute the coins evenly * How to ensure that the vote was cast by the person you gave the coin to * How to ensure that nobody can find out who you voted for afterwards

dmvaldman 11y ago
Many cryptocurrencies have your last two points as part of their design. For the first one, I see the value in going to a centralized place that has taken measures to make sure there is no coercing involved. Someone with a gun could indeed come to your home, and make you vote for a certain candidate. I don't have a good answer for this, but I do feel that it would be a difficult strategy to pull off, as citizens can vote at any time, from any place. For your second point, this is indeed the hard part. It can be rephrased as: how can you be sure no one was given 2 coins? I also don't have an answer here that doesn't make you associate an SSN or another unique identifier with a wallet address, which would ruin the anonymity feature. Maybe someone else reading has some good ideas to add?
- hga 11y ago
  "but I do feel that it would be a difficult strategy to pull off, as citizens can vote at any time, from any place" The coercion could and would take the effect of requiring you to vote while the coercier was watching you. If you voted before then, you'd suffer the consequences. This is an absolute bar to on-line voting as far as I'm concerned; in the US it would likely spark the hot civil war we're sliding towards.
  - mattkrisiloff 11y ago
    Is there a difference with absentee ballots?
    - hga 11y ago
      Nope, which is one of the reasons they're the target of many if not most current US voting scams.