Voting should never be done by machines or go digital.
The only technology you should implement: biometric authentication voter ID. That alone takes care of the fraud, dead people votes etc. The biometric stuff is already on smartphones and passports, worrying about 'privacy' now is asinine.
No! I seriously need to put together a post on blockchain to explain how insecure it is. Think about all the hacked databases you hear about. Those websites that lose passwords.
Now realize blockchain is that on every computer that is connected. Now think how many viruses you have to deal with, and realize each computer is a weak link.
Now, blockchain at its absolute perfect can recover from bad actors so long as less than 30% are taken over. Above that and all bets are off. This has mathematical proofs going back to the 80's.
So picture you know how many nodes there are, and you want to corrupt or interfere with the blockchain. You just setup enough nodes that can do that, which is trivial with cloud virtual machines.
And our bad actors could be China or Dems, so big pockets, they only need to interfere for a small amount of time.
Something like the Great Firewall of China is made to mess with crypto, they can at any time split their Bitcoin from the rest of the network for a few hours and when it comes back, you now have 2 competing blockchains you can't figure out which one to use.
I think BC tech is much more difficult to hack because each PC has a complete copy of the data that's trying to be hacked. If there are discrepancies, it can be easily found.
I'd love to hear more about what you have to say on this because I'm working on figuring out a way to make sure that Block chain cna't be corrupted like that.
Look, discrepancies are easy to find. But which one is correct? How do you tell and keep the votes anonymous? I am not into it enough to explain it perfectly, but you can find more info easily.
Here is a Youtube video explaining Hashgraph, a fast blockchain with security as its main focus. This talk is about the security aspect. Notice in the first few minutes Leemon Baird briefly mentions the 30% problem .
You can't get past that 30% bad actors problem. I wouldn't trust anything as important as voting with a full computer. A custom chip that can only add is still not trustworthy, because you can make it add 2 for one party. Over site and human eyes are what we need.
very slow and insecure. First, if you used it, the count won't ever finish. BTC never says this is the final outcome, it only ever gets to it is close enough. Its a fundamental flaw of its work mechanic. Second it is slow. Third, it has many known security flaws so it can't it is much lower than that 30% metric in the perfect case scenario. Its only claim to fame is it s first.
Database for biometric data could just as easily be hacked or compromised. If paper ballots is the way, then an ink finger print should be required just for verification purposes in an after-the-fact audit, just like a signature supposedly is now.
It might not even be the swamp, it's probably just because Biden "won." These freaks have been losing for so long, when a win comes along they're going to cling to it like Gollum finding the ring. She'll lie, cheat, steal - do anything to keep her win. Including going back on her word from six months ago.
Amazing how all these Dems that pride themselves on their principles and loudly accused these voting machine companies of corruption and election rigging, yet now that there's massive evidence showing they were 100% correct on that point, every one of them has Homer Simpson'd back into the bush.
Voting should never be done by machines or go digital.
The only technology you should implement: biometric authentication voter ID. That alone takes care of the fraud, dead people votes etc. The biometric stuff is already on smartphones and passports, worrying about 'privacy' now is asinine.
Maybe blockchain?
No! I seriously need to put together a post on blockchain to explain how insecure it is. Think about all the hacked databases you hear about. Those websites that lose passwords.
Now realize blockchain is that on every computer that is connected. Now think how many viruses you have to deal with, and realize each computer is a weak link.
Now, blockchain at its absolute perfect can recover from bad actors so long as less than 30% are taken over. Above that and all bets are off. This has mathematical proofs going back to the 80's.
So picture you know how many nodes there are, and you want to corrupt or interfere with the blockchain. You just setup enough nodes that can do that, which is trivial with cloud virtual machines.
And our bad actors could be China or Dems, so big pockets, they only need to interfere for a small amount of time.
Something like the Great Firewall of China is made to mess with crypto, they can at any time split their Bitcoin from the rest of the network for a few hours and when it comes back, you now have 2 competing blockchains you can't figure out which one to use.
I think BC tech is much more difficult to hack because each PC has a complete copy of the data that's trying to be hacked. If there are discrepancies, it can be easily found.
I'd love to hear more about what you have to say on this because I'm working on figuring out a way to make sure that Block chain cna't be corrupted like that.
Look, discrepancies are easy to find. But which one is correct? How do you tell and keep the votes anonymous? I am not into it enough to explain it perfectly, but you can find more info easily.
Here is a Youtube video explaining Hashgraph, a fast blockchain with security as its main focus. This talk is about the security aspect. Notice in the first few minutes Leemon Baird briefly mentions the 30% problem .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcToFASnyrc
Here is a link with some more info.
https://docs.hedera.com/guides/core-concepts/hashgraph-consensus-algorithms#security
You can't get past that 30% bad actors problem. I wouldn't trust anything as important as voting with a full computer. A custom chip that can only add is still not trustworthy, because you can make it add 2 for one party. Over site and human eyes are what we need.
What about with BTC?
very slow and insecure. First, if you used it, the count won't ever finish. BTC never says this is the final outcome, it only ever gets to it is close enough. Its a fundamental flaw of its work mechanic. Second it is slow. Third, it has many known security flaws so it can't it is much lower than that 30% metric in the perfect case scenario. Its only claim to fame is it s first.
Are you stuck in 3 years ago? You do understand how the lightning network works, right?
You can play monopoly with individual satoshi's. Also, it's passed the "51% attack" test.
Something about what you're saying just doesn't make sense, or is extremely outdated.
More like 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans hand counting each stack of votes until there's only a single count and there's no discrepancies
Database for biometric data could just as easily be hacked or compromised. If paper ballots is the way, then an ink finger print should be required just for verification purposes in an after-the-fact audit, just like a signature supposedly is now.
its actually quite sad to see that only half a year she had something like morals to say that out loud...the swamp sucks everyone in.
She was only outspoken because she thought the corruption favoured the republicans. Now that she knows it benefits the democrats, she's all for it.
My guess is they were slow sending her the check they promised...
It might not even be the swamp, it's probably just because Biden "won." These freaks have been losing for so long, when a win comes along they're going to cling to it like Gollum finding the ring. She'll lie, cheat, steal - do anything to keep her win. Including going back on her word from six months ago.
Kek!
Her opinion changed when it was used against Trump
She took a fat bribe from Zuck the cuck. Stopped complaining when that shell foundation he set up paid her off.
Yep which is why she was so freaked, my guess is she deposited it directly into her personal account
Amazing how all these Dems that pride themselves on their principles and loudly accused these voting machine companies of corruption and election rigging, yet now that there's massive evidence showing they were 100% correct on that point, every one of them has Homer Simpson'd back into the bush.
I heard she stopped complaining after Zuckerberg gave her a fat check.
Her way of getting a check. Bet!
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk....This is hilarious. Comedy GOLD.
I wish we had these posts during the hearing so we could ask her about them!
Ahh.. so this was her winging about not being offered bribes. She changed her tune right quick when zuck doled her a fat check.
You need to say which Elena, pre check or post check
In a fraud of this size and complexity, there would be more than one check :)
That tweet is NOT Elena Parent. Her twatter was obviously hacked by someone with a time machine. Fucking racists.
A conspiracy? IT"S BIN DEBUNQUED!