[HN Gopher] Blockchain voting is overrated among uninformed but ... ___________________________________________________________________ Blockchain voting is overrated among uninformed but underrated among informed Author : karlicoss Score : 29 points Date : 2021-10-22 22:00 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (vitalik.ca) (TXT) w3m dump (vitalik.ca) | [deleted] | aazaa wrote: | This article reminds me of every other article I've seen about | blockchain voting. None of them start with a threat model. None | of them talk about what's broken with voting. Mostly they just | dive into technology, relying on the reader's imagination to | address these points. | | Here are some simple questions: | | 1. What are you trying to protect in a vote? | | 2. Why can't an SQL database with whatever levels of | cryptographic assurance you'd like to add do the job? | | 3. What does a blockchain add to (2) that no other technology | does, regardless of cost? | | These questions are never answered, and indeed they are not | answered here either. Instead, these articles lead with | technology and rarely get around to what matters. | | Often there's something like this included in the article: | | > Blockchains are a technology which is all about providing | guarantees about process integrity. If a process is run on a | blockchain, the process is guaranteed to run according to some | pre-agreed code and provide the correct output. No one can | prevent the execution, no one can tamper with the execution, and | no one can censor and block any users' inputs from being | processed. | | No. A block chain is a timestamping mechanism. Within certain | very narrow boundaries, it makes certain guarantees about the | relative ordering of events. A tamper-resistant log file? Yes. A | solution to voting? Does that involve relative event ordering? If | so, is that the _central_ problem? | | Electronic cash systems like Bitcoin will work work just fine | without a blockchain, provided they can solve the double spending | problem. Bitcoin solved it with a system for ordering | transactions based on proof-of-work. There are other solutions, | but all suffer from censorship pressures in ways that Bitcoin | does not. | JadeNB wrote: | > 3. What does a blockchain add to (2) that no other technology | does, regardless of cost? | | Not defending blockchain, but this seems like an absurdly high | standard. To me, the cost of a technology is definitely one | factor in evaluating what is better or worse for solving a | given problem. | wccrawford wrote: | I somewhat agree, but with the amount of money that has | already been spent on failed electronic voting systems, I | think "regardless of cost" is pretty accurate here. | ggm wrote: | Non repudiation and transactional sequencing and public Ledger, | no problem. Merkle trees, no problem. Block chain is instant | problem. It's just crap marketing of fundamental concepts that we | need and do use. | | It's like confating good statistical methods with marginal use | cases for the techniques. | KronisLV wrote: | Could it be that the informed and uninformed are simply at | different stages of the Gartner hype cycle? | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle | | The informed might now become fully aware of all the limitations | and problems with it which might cause them to swing too far the | other way, in contrast to their previous optimism. | | At the same time, however, being aware of these limitations | hasn't become mainstream, so the uninformed have to go off of | other information - marketing materials and hand wavy | explanations of how blockchain will eventually be good for a | large variety of problems. | | The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, as it has with | most technologies. | jdavis703 wrote: | Most people understand that you can trade speed or quality. I do | not understand why the uniformed public thinks learning about | potentially inaccurate election results quickly is preferable to | accurate election results slower. | nemetroid wrote: | I'm happy that this article recognizes the need for coercion | resistance. But the second problem is stated too weakly: the | issue isn't that voting software is insecure, it's that it's too | complex. | | You could convince a person who doesn't know how to read that | paper ballots are a working system (vote box is empty; votes go | into box; box is emptied and all votes tallied). Only a small | fraction of society could be convinced of the correctness of the | tallying scheme in Fig. 2. | | You could argue that there are a lot of facets of modern society | that the average citizen doesn't understand the details of, but | voting is the cornerstone of democracy. Public trust in the | voting system is crucial. The only way to reliably achieve that | is through an understandable system, and so far the only | understandable voting system I've seen is paper ballots. | tehjoker wrote: | While the US system is completely ossified and unresponsive to | popular demands, proposals to make voting on everything both | ignore the power dynamics at play, voter fatigue, and history. | | In the 1789 French revolution, they did try having votes to try | to get more and more government officials elected after the | overthrow of the ancien regime, but the votes were so frequent | that people stopped showing up and the elections became barely | legitimate. | | Other than that, software elections are prime for tampering, and | even if they are determined to be secure by experts, suddenly the | mechanisms of democracy are opaque to the masses and become | untrustworthy. Making votes less understandable de-legitimizes | them. | | Lastly, the reason for the ossification of American democracy is | due to the fundamental oligarchical design of the 1776 | constitution that explicitly saw mass politics as mob rule and | feared it. They designed the branches of government as a series | of baffles to counter popular sway over policy making, hence a | Presidency that requires a vote so large they are responsible to | no one in particular (though originally they were elected | indirectly by electors), a Senate that was indirectly elected and | designed to void popular proposals coming from the house, and a | supreme court with lifetime terms that are totally unelected. As | an aside, their theory of the separation of powers was that the | elites would be mostly in agreement on fundamental issues and | fight over control of the branches of government. They were in | large part wrong, factions of opposing interests developed and | managed to capture the entire government in cycles (so we are | living in an edge failure case of the original design). | | This system, plus the domination of the economy by wealthy | interests, first the slave owning planter class and later the | capitalist corporate class, prevents and subverts popular | democracy at every turn except where the public's preferences | coincide with the real rulers. | | Voting is simply a preference expressed to the rulers. It doesn't | in any way carry a mechanism for enforcement and enactment and is | highly susceptible to all kinds of manipulation, especially when | voters are individualized and do not deliberate in organizations | and vote in blocks. | | If you want your voice heard, take to the streets and/or join an | independent party that include non-electoral tactics such as | strikes. | ouid wrote: | >Needless to say, this entire post is predicated on good | blockchain scaling technology (eg. sharding) being available. Of | course, if blockchains cannot scale, none of this can happen. But | so far, development of this technology is proceeding quickly, and | there's no reason to believe that it can't happen. | | The reason to believe it can't happen is that it hasn't. like | factoring large numbers. | bpodgursky wrote: | I am inclined to believe Vitalik on this. He's been very | intellectually honest and straightforward about where crypto | tech is and is not progressing. | a-dub wrote: | i've always thought the way to do this would be to combine paper | based ballots with multiple counting apparatus that are operated | by the competing parties and the state. | | i fill out my slip and i run it through the red machine, the blue | machine and the county machine. they all display a hash/sum of | the total counts thus far, i verify each machine has the same | thing on its display, i put my paper into the lockbox at the end | and done. | | of course the big threat is coercion. if they put a camera on | their machine that sees me put my slip in, they can match my vote | to my identity... but... since each party has representatives | present to watch over their machines, they also can also check | the machines of each other. (ops and election watching become one | and the same) | | it would just be cheap cameras and arm socs with open source | software. totally doable, i think. | | also, i'm sure there are things in that rich literature of voting | crypto that could also help with obscuring voter identity... but | hey, this would be a good start. | | it's not blockchain, but it takes one of the biggest ideas from | cryptocurrency. (double/triple entry accounting) | dvt wrote: | First of all, this is an old article (also discussed at time of | publication, I believe). Second of all, it seems to be a | headline-grab during the "fake election" foment of earlier this | year, and contains nothing particularly substantial. | | I will say, it's a bit funny that Buterin's thesis is "voting | would become much more efficient, allowing us to do it much more | often." This is just printed as _apriori_ true (and _good_ -- at | least in a societal sense), but our democracy (at least in the | States) is representative. In my heart of hearts, I 'd love to | believe that a direct democracy is the "best" form of government | -- tangentially, this is the argument of most DAOs. | Unfortunately, I just don't think this is true. Most people are | dumb, easily manipulated (not _coerced_ , as Buterin belabors). | Dumb people voting all the time is a recipe for disaster. | | W. E. B. Du Bois makes a great case for this in his The Talented | Tenth[1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talented_Tenth | lalaland1125 wrote: | The whole setup of blockchain voting ignores the vast economic | pressures at play here. Blockchains only work if the payoff for | cheating the system is lower than the cost of PoS or PoW or | whatever consensus mechanism is at play. | | The issue is that the results of major elections have truly | massive economic consequences. | | A president of the US has a powerful say over trillions of | dollars in funding. | | Meanwhile, total mining revenue for something like Bitcoin is | "only" $18 billion per year. | space_fountain wrote: | I think the Tom Scott video on electronic voting from years ago | remains the most convincing argument to me that it's a bad idea | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs). To summarize, even | assuming you can solve properties like correctness, censorship | resistance, privacy and coercion resistance. The fundamental | problem with digital is that any exploit of any of these | properties you ever have scales really well. Messing with a paper | election requires a lot of people working together across the | entire country. A digital hack just requires one smart person | knownjorbist wrote: | HN's perception of what's going in the decentralization and | crypto sphere - commonly grouped under the "web3" moniker - is | startlingly out of touch. There is incredible engineering going | on and it's hard to see past the cryptobro noise, but the | cypherpunk thing well all fetishized in our early years is | happening _now_, not in the 80s and 90s. | smitty1e wrote: | I didn't read this thoroughly enough for much comment, but this | jumps out: | | > But voting also requires some crucial properties that | blockchains do not provide: | | > Privacy: you should not be able to tell which candidate some | specific voted for, or even if they voted at all | | While the content of the ballot is sacred, the act of | participating in the election cannot be. | | The pollbook is a database, with all of the security and | maintenance hassle a database implies. | | As an election officer and ballot Luddite, I also think that | elections argue for lower tech in the case of the ballots. | | Tech is swell (reponding on a a Galaxy Note 10+ here) but | tangible ballots seem a hedge against shenanigans that no multi- | page mathematical proof of block-chainy grooviness can penetrate. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-22 23:00 UTC)