Thread

I agree!

Again #OpenSourceBSD leads to quicker #World #Peace

🤣

It’s a class thing, not an age thing. You’re naive if you think there aren’t millennials and genXers waiting to take over for the gray haired banksters of the world.

You are right, although I don’t believe for a second that generations don’t have archetypes (largely created by their environment)

How does choosing a new slave master give you power?

100%

Not true. Blockchain still doesn't allow you to verify real world identities and prevent double voting or Sybil attacks without a trusted authority.

You’re clearly the brightest among us.

Well you can’t cheat if you do that. And then there’s no bid to the highest payer if you don’t have the cheating to offer.

An early concept of end-to-end (E2E) verifiable voting systems, designed to provide both transparency and privacy in elections. One of the most well-known examples of this type of system is called Prêt à Voter (French for “Ready to Vote”), introduced by David Chaum, a pioneer in cryptographic voting. Here’s a high-level breakdown of how it works: Core Concepts 1. Paper Ballots with Encrypted Codes: Each voter receives a ballot with a list of candidates and an associated encrypted code. The code corresponds to the voter’s choice but is encrypted so that no one, not even the election officials, knows the chosen candidate directly. 2. Separation of Choice and Identity: After marking their choice, the voter tears off a part of the ballot, keeping their selection and a unique encrypted identifier or code. This part of the ballot can be used later to verify that their vote was correctly recorded without revealing which choice they made. 3. Cryptographic Verification: Once the votes are counted, a list of encrypted codes (not the candidates themselves) is published online. Voters can verify that the code associated with their vote appears on this list, proving that their vote was correctly recorded. Only the voter can link this code to their actual choice, preserving privacy. 4. Auditable Transparency: To detect manipulation, independent auditors can verify that the encrypted votes were properly processed through cryptographic proofs, and that the final tally matches the published codes. This process uses a type of zero-knowledge proof, which allows verifying a truth without revealing any actual private data. Advantages • Transparency and Trust: The system offers verifiable assurance that all votes are counted accurately, with tamper-evidence at every step. • Privacy: Voters verify their vote was recorded without disclosing their choice to anyone else. • Security: Since the system relies on cryptographic proofs, it’s difficult for an attacker to alter the outcome without detection. Later Innovations Other similar systems include Scantegrity (used in Takoma Park, Maryland, in 2009), which also employed a verifiable optical scan system, and Helios, an online voting system used in smaller-scale elections that combines E2E verifiability with digital-only ballots.

This is a problem. There is no way that your vote is verifiable that it was counted in the correct way. Anyone aware of a way to check on this?

Election commission officials should be able to reboot the machine and run diagnostic tools between elections. One of those tools could be an OS code checker that reads the checksum and compares it to official packages.

So if the election officials had access to the source code but it wasn't generally open source, would that be the same thing?

Openness makes it not just readable to them, but to everyone. If they can show the public that the checksum matches, and the code shows equality, then everyone's happy. If they keep it to themselves then they'll probably just cause too much suspicion. Why do it that way when they could fully open it up and remove that suspicion?

How does a voter know the checksum is not spoofed?

Checksums either match or they don't. To keep their election commissions from being partisan, and therefore lying about the match, they should compose their commission with equal amounts of both parties, watching each other.

If I was a judge and that case came across my desk I'd put the plaintiffs in Jail for trying to influence the election.

It’s insane the US has closed source, proprietary voting systems, we can’t trust or verify. Now I’m in the paper ballot with ID camp, but IF WE MUST use electronic voting, then the code should be open source.

Its a solved problem. They don't want the problem solved.