Blockchain isn't foolproof, and in fact could make cheating easier. Basically if a majority of all the computers that host ledgers agree with a result, then that result is considered "true".
But who controls the computers where the ledgers are stored?!
In theory, someone who controlled enough nodes in the network could forge an incorrect result and then force the rest of the network to accept it as "true".
We'd be replacing the Electoral College with computers. This is a nightmare.
The post offices run by liberal unions are going to host a server with only a single field guy in the regional office who has the slightest idea how to operate it? That doesn't sound ripe for fraud... Who is running the spyware/virus checks? Is the code 100% open source and reviewable? How do we verify the build isn't modified prior to installation?
Blockchain is cool, but there are so many problems left unsolved.
51% attacks are not possible on Ethereum. The network is far too large. If this were possible, the billions of dollars worth of assets secured on the network would quickly be stolen or become worthless.
Furthermore, not only would such an attack be immediately detected, it would necessarily be public. The miracle of such technology is that all votes can be verified by anyone without revealing anyone's vote. But any given voter can also verify that their vote was counted correctly.
It's hard to wrap your head around the potential. But understand that we are not talking about a mysql database.
If this were possible, the billions of dollars worth of assets secured on the network would quickly be stolen or become worthless.
Only if it is found to be worth the effort. If the NSA decides to spin up their Utah datacenter for a purpose, or Russia/China/Germany/etc. decides to do the same, you'll never see it coming.
The basic function of a blockchain is to make the data trustless so that anyone can run a node and the data is verified to be untampered. The security of a blockchain depends on a large number of distributed nodes. The effect is essentially to make security a function of hashpower or incentive structure.
Putting the data on a private government blockchain would only guarantee that the data can be manipulated and cannot be publicly verified, which is no better than any website.
Blockchain isn't foolproof, and in fact could make cheating easier. Basically if a majority of all the computers that host ledgers agree with a result, then that result is considered "true".
But who controls the computers where the ledgers are stored?!
In theory, someone who controlled enough nodes in the network could forge an incorrect result and then force the rest of the network to accept it as "true".
We'd be replacing the Electoral College with computers. This is a nightmare.
Not necessarily.
The only national piece could be the national voter registry.
Then, each county's post office could host the ledger, along with the cities and counties and state.
Such fraud would be extremely easy to identify, and in litigation (inevitable in such a circumstance) the ledger could be verified.
You could also allow individual citizen's to host the ledger as well. Obfuscate the voter but make the vote public.
The post offices run by liberal unions are going to host a server with only a single field guy in the regional office who has the slightest idea how to operate it? That doesn't sound ripe for fraud... Who is running the spyware/virus checks? Is the code 100% open source and reviewable? How do we verify the build isn't modified prior to installation?
Blockchain is cool, but there are so many problems left unsolved.
Set up correctly this could be the most secure form of voting possible with current technology.
Everyone had the same concern about Bitcoin and it is still going strong.
yes because fools dont realize bitcoin HAS a backdoor and was invented in langley what in the 1940s...
folks getting played ...we owe trump 4 years
shut this one down and give him his first proper four
It does? How does that work on a decentralized blockchain? Genuinely curious
i think it was bill binney or american intelligence media who first exposed the back door to bitcoin
i do beleive it was tommie williams who recently mentioned it was actually developed in the 40s post ww2
everything we have been told is true is fake fake fake
Yeah, but WHICH flavor/fork of Bitcoin is actually going strong and suitable for a task like this?
None.
Bitcoin is just one example of blockchain usage.
Voting with a blockchain would have nothing to do with the Bitcoin blockchain.
Fair enough. As long as the code is open and can be reviewed by anyone, it could be doable.
Block chain is the next big technology like the internet. Bitcoin and all its flavors are just like early websites.
51% attacks are not possible on Ethereum. The network is far too large. If this were possible, the billions of dollars worth of assets secured on the network would quickly be stolen or become worthless.
Furthermore, not only would such an attack be immediately detected, it would necessarily be public. The miracle of such technology is that all votes can be verified by anyone without revealing anyone's vote. But any given voter can also verify that their vote was counted correctly.
It's hard to wrap your head around the potential. But understand that we are not talking about a mysql database.
Only if it is found to be worth the effort. If the NSA decides to spin up their Utah datacenter for a purpose, or Russia/China/Germany/etc. decides to do the same, you'll never see it coming.
Government and academic data centers are orders of magnitude smaller than the top three blockchains. It's not even close.
I don't think you understand how blockchain works.
It can be as permission as you want it to be. You think they'd let anybody run a node?
The basic function of a blockchain is to make the data trustless so that anyone can run a node and the data is verified to be untampered. The security of a blockchain depends on a large number of distributed nodes. The effect is essentially to make security a function of hashpower or incentive structure.
Putting the data on a private government blockchain would only guarantee that the data can be manipulated and cannot be publicly verified, which is no better than any website.
But if anybody can run a node, that's how you get the wrong side with nodes and claiming fraud where one exists.
A 51% attack is not possible on any of the top blockchains. They are far too large.
No. That’s not the purpose of any part of distributed ledgers and blockchains.
No elaboration? I can do this too.
I'm right. You're wrong. QED
No, I don't think they'd let just anybody run a node. But how do we know we can trust the people who are running them?
This system seems like it would totally eliminate the paper trail for voting and that makes me very uncomfortable.
locked servers, in local courthouses, deployed to counties by the Fed/election committee. Only those authorised by the committee can direct access.
The most that anyone else (including those who guard the servers) can do is turn them on or off.
you don't need a paper trail in blockchain. The exact same functionality exists in digital form.
If sufficiently distributed, it should be nearly impossible to corrupt even with nation-state level resources.