Post by Jacopo ToljaThank you Scott i understand your point but if that thrust can become
manageable and we get notification every time one node screw up something?
And if there are a thousand nodes? That kind of scalability is exactly
the problem. How many nodes with hacked software need to be introduced
to render the whole system non-functional?
Post by Jacopo Toljaand by rule that node is escluded untill it verified his own data ?
Again, IMHO it's not about theoretical reliability, it's about trust:
I spent hours a few days ago fighting off an attack on the Matchism
forums from attacks originating in the Ukraine and/or Russia, for
example. How can you design a system where vote rigging is organized
(or even state sponsored)? No one will trust *any* of the results if
they can't plainly see the results for themselves. Nor should they.
Post by Jacopo ToljaIf the system is designed to control milion of contract like ethereum , or
value transaction bitcoin why cannot be used to control discussion and
decision?
Bitcoin demonstrates the problem exactly: I don't know if you've read
much on the scalability of it, but it's not even *theoretically*
capable of processing even a small fraction of 1% of the transactions
that Visa or Mastercard can. A system where 10 billion people could
vote in one day just can't work if each of the notes must verify all
of the transaction (and if they don't, again, no one should trust the
output). And why even have a system that requires all this processing
when direct open voting solves it transparently and with minimal CPU
requirements? Secrecy? Sorry, if you believe that is required you're
not reading the research (i.e., the only people that see it a
requirement are either clinically paranoid or simply misinformed and
the problem will go away if you explain how the system works and then
get them to use it a few times). And besides reporting the results of
just asking The People about this, it's demonstrated every day by
their willing to cast public votes in a vast array of other forums).
Post by Jacopo ToljaAs a starter https://discipl.org/2017/02/15/p2pollderblog/
Hadn't seen that, but it looks like the same obsessional/delusional
stuff that all the other blockchain groupies are proposing. But maybe
you can tell me how it solves any of the *real* problems with
democracy:
1) Non-participation (i.e., only the activerts cast ballots).
2) Misrepresentatives (i.e., any system that relies on people being
able to predict/control how a politician will vote/act on their
behalf).
3) Transparency (i.e., where you can easily, reliably, and directly
verify that your (and/or your proxies') votes were properly recorded).
In fact I only see a few potential benefits in all of the blockchain
proposals, all of which are either not essential or can be achieved
other ways:
1) Secrecy: Your vote can't be traced back to you unless you give out
your keys (the downside being that no one can verify all of the
votes).
2) Distributed data: Hacking the main server won't bring down the
entire system (although sharding databases, as proxyfor.me is designed
to use, will also prevent this, and yet without opening the Pandora's
box of letting *anyone* claim they're running a legitimate node).
3) Distributed control: There's no one "government" in charge of
everything. But this, again, IMHO is missing the point: Government
can't function without an executive branch, and if you can't trust the
executive branch you've got far worse problems that just whether your
votes are being counted properly (i.e., a corrupt executive branch
will just ignore the output of your fancy blockchain system).
Regards,
Scott