Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:02:17 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Massive GOP Voting Fraud Discovered: Ron Paul Likely Won Many Elections  (Read 2495 times)
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
 #21

Once they make an open-source open-design voting machine that is certified by multiple personally accountable technicians and has visible holographic tamper stickers everywhere that I can verify, THEN I might consider supporting electronic voting. Until then, I think the risks from paper ballots are way smaller. Joel's idea is better - but so far just in theory.
The whole point of the design is so that you don't have to trust the machine. You can make it mathematically impractical for the machine to do anything but what it is supposed to, and you can ensure that if it fails to do anything it is supposed to do, it cannot hide that. It's not just theory, the algorithms and methods are known. But nobody has any interest in implementing them.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
1481374937
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374937

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374937
Reply with quote  #2

1481374937
Report to moderator
1481374937
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374937

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374937
Reply with quote  #2

1481374937
Report to moderator
1481374937
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374937

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374937
Reply with quote  #2

1481374937
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Header-only clients like MultiBit trust that the majority of mining power is honest for the purposes of enforcing network rules such as the 21 million BTC limit. Full clients do not trust miners in this way.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
March 14, 2012, 06:48:31 PM
 #22

Quote from: benjamindees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQXeGtfqCOw

Ran across this.  Seems interesting.  No idea whether it's real or not.
that link is b.s ; it's obvious that it is a cut and paste job.

Perhaps.  But if so, it's obviously not pieced together word-by-word.  And the phrases are interesting enough in and of themselves.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
March 14, 2012, 09:25:53 PM
 #23

Once they make an open-source open-design voting machine that is certified by multiple personally accountable technicians and has visible holographic tamper stickers everywhere that I can verify, THEN I might consider supporting electronic voting. Until then, I think the risks from paper ballots are way smaller. Joel's idea is better - but so far just in theory.
The whole point of the design is so that you don't have to trust the machine. You can make it mathematically impractical for the machine to do anything but what it is supposed to, and you can ensure that if it fails to do anything it is supposed to do, it cannot hide that. It's not just theory, the algorithms and methods are known. But nobody has any interest in implementing them.

I'm interested! Smiley Please link some further reading material. I had always assumed a need to either forego secrecy or trust some entity.
neptop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 314


View Profile
March 16, 2012, 07:35:23 PM
 #24

There are systems for most of these things, but to my knowledge in the end you still have a box pretending to do this, while it doesn't.

A lot of these systems can be read upon on Wikipedia or books about cryptography. Only problem is that even if it works, I think it is too easy to trick most people or be lied to. You know, it is like Bitcoin. Everything works by mathematical rules and could show them, but also create a program that does something completely different, but still looks like that. And while you can find out by disassembling, having a closer look or something like that it can be hard to do that with a voting machine.

Also you only have to trick some people, to cause that one percent difference. You can trick people, also on stuff that you can (easily) verify.

However, you can also brain wash people with media and in a certain environment you can be as "smart" as you want and still would believe it, because of how our brains work.

BitCoin address: 1E25UJEbifEejpYh117APmjYSXdLiJUCAZ
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 16, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
 #25

There are systems for most of these things, but to my knowledge in the end you still have a box pretending to do this, while it doesn't.
That would result in cast votes not in the final count. Anyone in possession of such a cast vote could demonstrate that it was not in the final count. So while a machine could do that, it would be detectable. So long as the system ensures all cast votes come into the possession of some auditors (which is not difficult to do) all such votes would ultimately be counted.

Quote
A lot of these systems can be read upon on Wikipedia or books about cryptography. Only problem is that even if it works, I think it is too easy to trick most people or be lied to. You know, it is like Bitcoin. Everything works by mathematical rules and could show them, but also create a program that does something completely different, but still looks like that. And while you can find out by disassembling, having a closer look or something like that it can be hard to do that with a voting machine.
That's why the voting machine wouldn't be the device you'd trust. The voting *machine* would be like the Bitcoin network. You don't have to trust it because it *can't* break the rules. It *can't* generate a spend for your coins without your key and it doesnt' have your key. If it doesn't process a transaction, you have that transaction and you can demonstrate that it wasn't processed.

The idea is not to convince everyone that the voting system is sound. The goal is to product a voting system that actually *is* sound.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
March 16, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
 #26

That's why the voting machine wouldn't be the device you'd trust. The voting *machine* would be like the Bitcoin network. You don't have to trust it because it *can't* break the rules. It *can't* generate a spend for your coins without your key and it doesnt' have your key. If it doesn't process a transaction, you have that transaction and you can demonstrate that it wasn't processed.

So if I'm not trusting the voting machine, where do I cast my vote? Without a technical explanation it's hard for me to understand how physical security is not a problem. With Bitcoin I can take personal responsibility for securing my computer - with voting we need to ENFORCE security so people can't be coerced.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2012, 06:20:05 AM
 #27

So if I'm not trusting the voting machine, where do I cast my vote? Without a technical explanation it's hard for me to understand how physical security is not a problem. With Bitcoin I can take personal responsibility for securing my computer - with voting we need to ENFORCE security so people can't be coerced.
You cast your vote in the voting machine, but you also walk out with your vote (and a collection of other votes) secured in a device that you bring with you that is open source (and auditors also get a copy of the votes). If any vote in your device doesn't appear in the final count (or the auditors don't have it), you can provide the signed output of your device. It's a bit complicated to explain in detail, I'll try to put in more details when I get a chance.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
March 17, 2012, 06:40:51 AM
 #28

I know you "could" make a machine that is anti-fraud; but as experience has showed over the last 10-20 years, no government is advocating such well designed machines; that is why i personally believe that we should not accept any voting machines, and continue to use the paper based method for elections.

I am not saying that paper based methods are perfect, however with "physical" voting, it is easier to detect and reduce fraud, especially in less developed societies.


A better choice would be to [ur=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortitionl]randomly select people to act as representatives[/url].  Maybe get 3 people randomly selected per district.  Pay them a good wage and only let them server for 2 years.  There is no reason to need voting systems.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
March 17, 2012, 08:14:57 PM
 #29

A better choice would be to [ur=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortitionl]randomly select people to act as representatives[/url].  Maybe get 3 people randomly selected per district.  Pay them a good wage and only let them server for 2 years.  There is no reason to need voting systems.

No wage is enough. Centralizated representatives - either elected or randomly selected - always provide a clear target for bribery and politics. Especially if they are all lame ducks.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!