On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Tom Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 April 2014 13:59, Will Holcomb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2. If the voting site tracks which identity it gives to which human, the > >> identity is trivially unmasked. > > > > The voting site doesn't have access to the identities, only the identity > > service. > > So the voting site who knows real world identities gets a code from > the pseudonym server, and gives the code to the human. The human > redeems the code on the pseudonym server and gets a pseudonym. The two > must collude to unmask the user. >
The voting site only knows pseudonyms. The identity site knows which pseudonyms are connected to a verified identity. The user holds the verification of which particular voter address is connected to their pseudonyms. To figure out who cast a vote, the attacker needs to (in the case of a secret vote) get how the pseudonym voted from the voting server, get the secret key and id of the user from the identity server, and get the signed link connecting the verified id to the voter registration address from the user. In the case of a voting system, it is unlikely a judicial process would be used to expose the data. Separating these concerns also makes it easier to build the system. All the identity system needs to do is buy voter records, mail out verification codes, and respond to verification queries. The voting system (or market of systems) can evolve independently. >> That's a lot of trust to place in the voting site. > > > > Any sort of electronic voting will have to have some element of trust. > You > > can't have a digital poll without someone collecting the votes. > > I disagree (on the first part). Most electronic voting systems aim to > provide vote auditing, by which you can ensure that your vote was > unmodified and included in the total. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems This doesn't really address the issue of trying to limit the number of accounts to the number of users. I can tell that my 5000 bots votes were all cast correctly, but how do I keep them from voting? > > I've been trying to figure out if there's a solution possible through > doing > > away with the secrecy of the vote. The mechanism for allowing a person to > > avoid unsavory repercussions from their positions could be done by > excluding > > identities from consideration. > > Alternately, assert there is no way to reveal how you voted, dubbed > 'receipt freeness' from the above wikipedia article. I'm wanting real world individuals to be able to build reputations based on identifying with pseudonyms. I'm interested in sort of micro-politicians. Congress classifies bills according to issue area designations. You can see a list of them on popvox <https://www.popvox.com/bills>. I'd like people to run to be people's proxy on bills in these ~40 categories. You could have people vie to proxy on a single issue. Why not simply cast the vote directly rather than proxying to someone you agree with? An uninformed voter might be able to call up opinion statements from the top ranked opposing sides. You could have a politician that runs on the platform that they will cast their vote according to a direct poll of their constituency except in extrordinary situations where they will record an explanation. -Will
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
