Libertarian Party of Texas to Store Election Results On Three Blockchains (1 Viewer)

[Orly?]

Libertarian Party of Texas to Store Election Results On Three Blockchains - CoinDesk

The Libertarian Party of Texas will today log the results of a wide range of ballot initiatives on three separate blockchains, the most recent in a line of projects integrating the technology into the voting process.

Results of everything from ballot initiatives proposed on the spot to the selection of the state’s US presidential electors will be logged on the blockchains in what a party leader says is a step toward politicians being held accountable to voters in a new way.
....
"Every ballot is going to be logged in Florincoin," said Nick Spanos, founder of Blockchain Technologies Corporation (BTC). "We also hash all that out and put it on the bitcoin blockchain. But on the Florincoin, you can read every single ballot."

Spanos said he was attracted to Florincoin for the project because of its metadata limit of 528 bytes, compared to bitcoin’s 80 bytes. The extra space makes it perfect for storing ballot information, he said.
"""""""""""""''

Wouldn't it be great if we could all just vote with private keys and all the votes would be right there for all to see and could never be tampered with?

 

[Deuce]

The idea that this could never be tampered with is quite amusing.

 

[Orly?]

The idea that this could never be tampered with is quite amusing.

Lets see you try tampering with anything put in the bitcoin blockchain, not gonna happen..

 

[Chomsky]

Libertarian Party of Texas to Store Election Results On Three Blockchains - CoinDesk

The Libertarian Party of Texas will today log the results of a wide range of ballot initiatives on three separate blockchains, the most recent in a line of projects integrating the technology into the voting process.

Results of everything from ballot initiatives proposed on the spot to the selection of the state’s US presidential electors will be logged on the blockchains in what a party leader says is a step toward politicians being held accountable to voters in a new way.
....
"Every ballot is going to be logged in Florincoin," said Nick Spanos, founder of Blockchain Technologies Corporation (BTC). "We also hash all that out and put it on the bitcoin blockchain. But on the Florincoin, you can read every single ballot."

Spanos said he was attracted to Florincoin for the project because of its metadata limit of 528 bytes, compared to bitcoin’s 80 bytes. The extra space makes it perfect for storing ballot information, he said.
"""""""""""""''

Wouldn't it be great if we could all just vote with private keys and all the votes would be right there for all to see and could never be tampered with?

I see how this has the advantage of now being out there for relative posterity, but since the voting is done traditionally, how does this differ from simply archiving and publishing the result via the web as is done now?

 

[Orly?]

I see how this has the advantage of now being out there for relative posterity, but since the voting is done traditionally, how does this differ from simply archiving and publishing the result via the web as is done now?

This is not a finished product, but it is a step in the right direction toward blockchain technology.

The article says that you can see every vote in the Florincoin blockchain, so you can count them yourself.. Also with it being in a blockchain it can never be changed unless the network is overpowered in 51% attack..

Now Florincoin is not as secure as Bitcoin because it has much less hashpower securing it. So what they do is take a hash of the florincoin blockchain and imbed it in the Bitcoin blockchain, that is monsterously extremely secure. And that cannot be tampered with or changed. It would take more electricity than most countries use to overpower that network, that mining/security network being the biggest most powerful in the world and in the history of the world..

In the future everyone could get a pair of cryptographic keys and vote directly on the blockchain with their key and the votes could never be tampered with once it's made.

 

[Deuce]

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+hacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And that's just the direct method.

 

[Orly?]

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+hacked&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And that's just the direct method.

Bitcoin has NEVER been hacked... 3rd parties get hacked all the time, Bitcoin has not..

 

[Deuce]

Bitcoin has NEVER been hacked... 3rd parties get hacked all the time, Bitcoin has not..

I'm not sure why you think that's an important distinction.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm not sure why you think that's an important distinction.

probably because nothing in this process is in 3rd party hands?

besides,it's been argued for years now that voter fraud doesn't happen... so what's to worry about?

 

[Deuce]

probably because nothing in this process is in 3rd party hands?

Not correct.

besides,it's been argued for years now that voter fraud doesn't happen... so what's to worry about?

That isn't the argument.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Good idea in theory. ****ty in practice.

 

[Orly?]

I'm not sure why you think that's an important distinction.

I don't understand how you would think it isn't...

No amount of hacking any website or computer has or could ever change something that has been put in the blockchain.. You can put more stuff on top of the blockchain, but you can never change what has been previously put there..

 

[Thrilla]

Not correct.

what 3rd party is involved in the process?

That isn't the argument.

ya kinda made it part of the argument when you brought "tampering" into it.

 

[Orly?]

Good idea in theory. ****ty in practice.

All good things come in time..

Besides.. What is "****ty" about this particular example?

 

[Orly?]

what 3rd party is involved in the process?

In this example the votes are still collected by the libertarian party (3rd party) before they are put into the blockchains..

When there is a way used for the voters to vote straight on the blockchain with their own set of cryptographic keys that would eliminate any 3rd parties..

 

[Deuce]

what 3rd party is involved in the process?

People making the software, people distributing keys, people at polling stations, voters themselves, storage of any data.

ya kinda made it part of the argument when you brought "tampering" into it.

that doesn't make any sense. you brought up some nonsense about "fraud doesn't happen."

People haven't claimed zero fraud. Don't believe me? Link me to one person saying "there have never been fraudulent votes."

 

[Orly?]

1.People making the software,
2. people distributing keys,
3. people at polling stations,
3. voters themselves,
4. storage of any data.

1. Bitcoin software has stood the test of time.. Never hacked
2. You generate your own keys.. You NEVER NEVER get keys from someone else..
3. The voter themselves are not 3rd parties.
4. Data stored in the blockchain cannot be tampered with or changed in any way.

 

[Thrilla]

People making the software, people distributing keys, people at polling stations, voters themselves, storage of any data.

fair enough.. though i'm really not seeing much a problem with tampering with the date once it's inputted in triplicate.

I'll take it you're not a fan of electronic voting ideas?

that doesn't make any sense. you brought up some nonsense about "fraud doesn't happen."

People haven't claimed zero fraud. Don't believe me? Link me to one person saying "there have never been fraudulent votes."

I put the wink at the end of the sentence for a reason... unbunch your panties

 

[Deuce]

1. Bitcoin software has stood the test of time.. Never hacked

Just virtually every place where the data was stored, with people making off with the "loot."

2. You generate your own keys.. You NEVER NEVER get keys from someone else..

Generate the keys with my own software/hardware?

3. The voter themselves are not 3rd parties.

They are capable of screwing things up or acting in an unsecure fashion. I mean how many dip****s have a password of "password" or "abc123"

4. Data stored in the blockchain cannot be tampered with or changed in any way.

Nothing is unbreakable.

 

[Deuce]

fair enough.. though i'm really not seeing much a problem with tampering with the date once it's inputted in triplicate.

Unless the input device is compromised.

I'll take it you're not a fan of electronic voting ideas?

I have no objection to the concept, I'm merely objecting to the idea that such a thing would be perfectly secure.

I put the wink at the end of the sentence for a reason... unbunch your panties

Stupidity with a winky face is still stupidity.

 

[Thrilla]

Unless the input device is compromised.

the article said they are using 3 scanners to upload hte ballots..... is there a way to have scanners change only a select number of ballots?

I have no objection to the concept, I'm merely objecting to the idea that such a thing would be perfectly secure.

well, i'm no expert on the matter, but it does seem like a pretty secure method to me... more secure than anything else that's been floated anyways.


Stupidity with a winky face is still stupidity.[/QUOTE] I guess you chose to keep your panties bunched up.... fine by me.

 

[Orly?]

1.Just virtually every place where the data was stored, with people making off with the "loot."
2. Generate the keys with my own software/hardware?
3. They are capable of screwing things up or acting in an unsecure fashion. I mean how many dip****s have a password of "password" or "abc123"
4. Nothing is unbreakable.

1. All cases of hacks are about stealing someones keys, if you don't keep your keys safe it is your fault not bitcoins..
2. Absolutely, on any device, you can even do it with dice or just choose random digits.. You can gen private keys that have never scene the internet and then use a simple algorithm to calculate the public key from your private key on an offline computer.
3. You can save your keys behind a weak password and they can hack your password to get your keys, but you cannot hack keys.. You can just write keys on paper so they cannot be hacked off of a computer because they are not on a computer.
4. Yet to be broken and all the best have tried..

 

[Orly?]

Unless the input device is compromised.

Nope.. If you get the input device you can input more data but you can never change the data you already input, you can only ever add more, never change something in the past.

 

[Orly?]

the article said they are using 3 scanners to upload hte ballots..... is there a way to have scanners change only a select number of ballots?

Scanners are 3rd parties in this example..

They are just recording the vote count on blockchains in this example, not actually doing the voting on blockchains.

It's still really good because they cannot change the votes they input into the blockchains ever once they do it..

They could submit it again differently, but the old one would still be there.

 

[Deuce]

Nope.. If you get the input device you can input more data but you can never change the data you already input, you can only ever add more, never change something in the past.

Compromised at the time of input.