Researchers from several institutes worldwide recently developed Quarks, a new, decentralized messaging network based on blockchain technology. Their proposed system could overcome the limitations of most commonly used messaging platforms, allowing users to retain control over their personal data and other information they share online.

  • interolivary
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, not a regular blockchain: you don’t want individual votes to be public and easily linked to the person making the vote.

    Blockchains are possibly the worst way to implement voting at least in a “public” / governmental setting. You need to be able to do zero-knowledge votes, meaning that you want it to be impossible to look at a “vote transaction” and say who did the voting and who they voted for, but also know with (practically) absolute certainty that the vote was done by a valid voter and isn’t a duplicate, and then finally you want to be able to tally the votes per candidate even though you can’t look at an individual vote and say who it was for. So any sort of “classic” blockchain is almost the literal opposite of all that, with public transactions that are tied to public identities and where everyone can tell what happened. What you need is something that either allows or is based on zero knowledge proofs, but I honestly dunno if any current project can do this out of the box, haven’t kept up to date that much lately

      • interolivary
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Without some sort of zk mechanism, the machines “bundling” local votes still know the votes. If you have a small district, then it may be possible to figure out who voted for who.

        Trust me, there’s been a lot of research into doing electronic voting and generally the consensus is that a “regular” blockchain would be a terrible choice.

        Personally I don’t trust electronic voting at all and think paper ballots are the way to go

          • interolivary
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah it seems like people are generally inclined to trust electronic voting more than paper ballots, when the reality is that the vast, vast majority of electronic voting systems are so utterly borked that it’s possible to pretty trivially change election results, often without leaving any trace of the tampering.

            The Hursti Hack is the classic example, and by no means the only one. Incidentally the person that hack’s named after, Harri Hursti, is a family friend. He caught me trying to crack passwords on his UN*X shell box (with a dictionary cracking tool, probably Crack) in the early 90’s when I was a teenage nerdlet with too much free time and not enough brains 😅

      • @tombuben@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        If you need the person to walk somewhere, physically show a voter ID to someone to be let into a private area where they receive their private key in a machine for them to then vote remotely, wouldn’t it be easier just to remove the entire technology part of the equation and just make them put a piece of paper inside an envelope in that private area, so that they can then put that piece of paper into a public ballot box right after?

        Electronic voting is a bad idea in general, blockchain isn’t going to fix that.

          • @tombuben@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            But you don’t want that either. This opens up a way for people to demand others to prove they voted a certain way - I.e. abusive family could force all family members to vote the same. Paper ballots shouldn’t ever be identifiable back to anyone.