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.
Trustless is misused, even in blockchains. What a [distributed] blockchain does is:
“...minimize the amount of trust required from any single actor in the system.“
This use of “trustless” doesn’t apply to custom ledgers that assign verifying nodes, that is: are not distributed to anyone who wants to participate, such as Chy-Na would like to when it comes to our voting.
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
Trustless is misused, even in blockchains. What a [distributed] blockchain does is:
This use of “trustless” doesn’t apply to custom ledgers that assign verifying nodes, that is: are not distributed to anyone who wants to participate, such as Chy-Na would like to when it comes to our voting.
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.