# 2021 Voter suppression



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/voting-covid-isolation-1.6175446



I think, considering we have an election during the pandemic.
We must make arrangements for those who have COVID19 to vote on election day.
I think this should be, at minimum, allowing those who are turned away at the polls to vote in an alternative manner.

Denying someone the right to vote, due to illness is wrong.

FWIW, I think this suppression will disproportionately impact disadvantaged persons.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We should have online voting.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

sags said:


> We should have online voting.


This is the easiest solution.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

So what are the current protocols for someone who is too sick (or in the hospital for whatever reason, Covid or not) to be present or even going online to vote?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> We should have online voting.


OMG no....

There is no way to have a secure free vote online.
There is not a single credible security expert who thinks it is possible today.
That was the conclusion of the parlimentary committee.

I will of course support online voting if
1. It is secure.
2. It is a free vote, where nobody can know my vote.

We have online banking, it is pretty secure, but the transactions aren't secret, you and the bank both know them.

The number one priority for any voting system is security and trustworthiness, which online voting does not have, and is technically not possible (with todays technology)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Everything we do is moving online. All our personal information is online or in a database somewhere. 

Someone knowing how I voted is the least of my worries.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt security is an issue that couldn't be surmounted.

The voting could be done with multiple verifications online but the data stored offline in physically secured computer banks.

Vote tabulations would be instant and results available as soon as the polls close.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I doubt security is an issue that couldn't be surmounted.


So you think that pretty much every security expert in the world is wrong, and you somehow no better.

Bit narcissistic don't ya think?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Many countries have some online voting, and Ontario has allowed municipalities to vote online since 2010.





__





TVO | Current affairs, documentaries and education







www.tvo.org


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Many countries have some online voting, and Ontario has allowed municipalities to vote online since 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, and as it says even in your clip.
Remote electronic voting will be the only option in more than 150 municipalities this October — *but experts say security and accessibility are still major concerns*

Did you even read the article?
The expert consensus is that secure online elections are not possible.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Major concerns......big deal.

I had major concerns when Bick's discontinued their hamburger relish........but I managed to survive.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> We should have online voting.


Was talking about it for months! I doubt that voting by mail is more secured that online. We could've vote just via CRA personal account


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Major concerns......big deal.
> 
> I had major concerns when Bick's discontinued their hamburger relish........but I managed to survive.


Uhh yeah, you compare the legitimacy of the government to a condiment.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Was talking about it for months! I doubt that voting by mail is more secured that online. We could've vote just via CRA personal account


Great idea.
Then they know exactly who voted for them, and who didn't vote for them.

No problem there right?


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

There are advance voting, mail in ballot, and special voting, where you vote at local EC office. Don't see any problem here.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Everything we do is moving online. All our personal information is online or in a database somewhere.
> 
> Someone knowing how I voted is the least of my worries.


You realize the best way to do this is crypto, right?

Cardano blockchain is probably going to be used for voting in Wyoming 2022 primaries (government there is already very pro crypto)


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Great idea.
> Then they know exactly who voted for them, and who didn't vote for them.
> 
> No problem there right?


There are many people that can login into your CRA account?!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Johnny_kar said:


> There are advance voting, mail in ballot, and special voting, where you vote at local EC office. Don't see any problem here.


I voted by mail

I have no way to know if my ballot got delivered or was counted. The security involves 3 paper envelopes and some scribbles. I'm sure they will analyze my ink scribbles to ensure it was me

Blockchains fix this


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

gibor365 said:


> Was talking about it for months! I doubt that voting by mail is more secured that online. We could've vote just via CRA personal account


The same CRA accounts?





__





Accounts locked on February 16 - Canada.ca


The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is committed to protecting the personal and tax information of Canadians.




www.canada.ca


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is no problem with online voting provided there is some assurance that identifying data is scrubbed before the vote falls into the electronic bin. But that is indeed the dilemma that the parliamentary committee concluded. Who checks the checkers?

Mail ballots have multiple envelopes. The inner most has no identifiers and holds the marked ballot. The identifying envelope with name, address and signature holds the inner most anonymous envelope. One is taking the leap of faith that Elections Canada opening the identifying envelope actually dumps the anonymous envelope containing the ballot (separation of duties like one has as part of their business controls in a corp) into the paper hopper for the next grunt to open. We are willing to take that leap of faith and that is how the compromised, infected and bedridden should be voting. We voted that way in the last BC provincial election, and in this federal one.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> There are many people that can login into your CRA account?!


Yes, CRA has been hacked.

Also the government shouldn't be recording who you're voting for.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> The same CRA accounts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, do you think voting by mail is more secure?! For example, our daughter is in Western , in London. Her voting card is coming to our house in Mississauga. I could've easily to vote on her behalf via mail. But I don;t have access to her CRA account


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> There is no problem with online voting provided there is some assurance that identifying data is scrubbed before the vote falls into the electronic bin. But that is indeed the dilemma that the parliamentary committee concluded. Who checks the checkers?
> 
> Mail ballots have multiple envelopes. The inner most has no identifiers and holds the marked ballot. The identifying envelope with name, address and signature holds the inner most anonymous envelope. One is taking the leap of faith that Elections Canada opening the identifying envelope actually dumps the anonymous envelope containing the ballot (separation of duties like one has as part of their business controls in a corp) into the paper hopper for the next grunt to open. We are willing to take that leap of faith and that is how the compromised, infected and bedridden should be voting.


With supervised mail in voting that's one thing.
It's another thing to know that's what is happening online.

Also the possibility for hacking is quite a bit higher with online.

Finally, I don't really like mail in voting to begin with. The potential for voter intimidation, like that which happens with union cards, is too high.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People get a little carried away with all the election fraud nonsense, since the Trump era.

Who cares if people know who I voted for. Let me guess........Justin Trudeau voted for Justin Trudeau.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Then vote by phone! When you call your bank , they ask a banch of security questions and you can do any financial transactions..... How many times somebody did transaction over phone on your behalf?!


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

gibor365 said:


> So, do you think voting by mail is more secure?! For example, our daughter is in Western , in London. Her voting card is coming to our house in Mississauga. I could've easily to vote on her behalf via mail. But I don;t have access to her CRA account


I believe voting should be exclusively in person.
Justifying bad and insecure method by stating another not completely secure method is in use is just weird


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Then vote by phone! When you call your bank , they ask a banch of security questions and you can do any financial transactions..... How many times somebody did transaction over phone on your behalf?!


I know many people who had fraudulent bank transactions.

You simply go in, prove it wasn't you, and they reverse it.

Now, unless they know who you voted for.
1. How do you know there was fraud?
2. How do they "reverse" your vote?

Really we're talking about an hour once every few years.
I say keep it trusted and secure.

Oh and the stakes for government are way higher than stealing a few bucks from your bank account.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who are "they".........doing all these nefarious things to change election outcomes that nobody else notices ?


----------



## NewbieInvestor88 (Feb 21, 2021)

sags said:


> Who are "they".........doing all these nefarious things to change election outcomes that nobody else notices ?


Any enemies of Canada who have an interest in favouring one party over another.

See Russia interfering with the US elections.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

NewbieInvestor88 said:


> Any enemies of Canada who have an interest in favouring one party over another.
> 
> See Russia interfering with the US elections.


Who the Hell are enemies of Canada?! Who cares about Canada at all?! And if we are talking nonsense about Russia again .... whom Russia prefers?! imho, Trudeau! as latest PM Conservative Harper was the most notable Russia's critic!


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

m3s said:


> You realize the best way to do this is crypto, right?
> 
> Cardano blockchain is probably going to be used for voting in Wyoming 2022 primaries (government there is already very pro crypto)


I was waiting for this post.

Voting in person is some pretty prehistoric, dinosaur age type of nonsense.

Once again... As if there are no ways of tampering with our current system... Because there are.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I was waiting for this post.
> 
> Voting in person is some pretty prehistoric, dinosaur age type of nonsense.
> 
> Once again... As if there are no ways of tampering with our current system... Because there are.


No doubt, there are.

But I want the new system to be better, and the security of free elections is my #1 priority.
If you can't take an hour out of your day to vote, then I doubt you have an informed vote, you clearly don't care.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

gibor365 said:


> So, do you think voting by mail is more secure?!
> 
> For example, our daughter is in Western , in London. Her voting card is coming to our house in Mississauga. I could've easily to vote on her behalf via mail.


I agree you probably could request then receive a mail in package for her.

Whether the bogus vote gets counted is not guaranteed. 

AFAICT, it seems depend on:
a) being returned on time.
b) passing the scribbles test.
c) her skipping in-person voting.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was more security measures in play but I haven't voted by mail and have not spent a lot of time looking into it.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

m3s said:


> I voted by mail
> 
> I have no way to know if my ballot got delivered or was counted ...


Elections Canada says there are online and phone methods of tracking the status of your returned mail ballot.

Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

m3s said:


> You realize the best way to do this is crypto, right?
> 
> Cardano blockchain is probably going to be used for voting in Wyoming 2022 primaries (government there is already very pro crypto)


The problem remains trust in the crypto provider (similar to the concern about CRA).


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

kcowan said:


> The problem remains trust in the crypto provider (similar to the concern about CRA).


@kcowen

The concept of trustlessness is a core element of blockchains and smart contracts

“Trustless” means that you don't have to trust a third party: a bank, a person, or any intermediary that could operate between you and your cryptocurrency transactions or holdings. You could actually control your own identify while also proving your identity without some 3rd party service like Equifax

This is understandable misunderstood but it is kind of the whole point of the decentralized construct. There is no "crypto provider" it is an open source protocol. Anyone can audit the code and any changes need to be accepted by a majority of nodes or else it doesn't happen

I already use it to vote on protocol improvements and decentralized organizations treasury funds


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> @kcowen
> 
> The concept of trustlessness is a core element of blockchains and smart contracts. “Trustless” means that you don't have to trust a third party: a bank, a person, or any intermediary that could operate between you and your cryptocurrency transactions or holdings. You could actually control your own identify while also proving your identity with a digital wallet without any 3rd party service
> 
> This is understandable misunderstood but it is kind of the whole point of the decentralized construct. There is no "crypto provider" it is an open source protocol


You have to trust that the protocol the government chooses happens to be secure.
There is no requirement they use an open protocol. In fact, I find it incredibly doubtful that a government would run their elections on a protocol they don't control.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> In fact, I find it incredibly doubtful that a government would run their elections on a protocol they don't control.


The government doesn't control the internet protocol and yet governments around the world use it for many things.

The government doesn't control a lot of tools they use. If I mail in my ballot from the other side of the world does the government control every post office service that handles it? Why should I have to trust the USPS with my paper ballot?

People just have to open their minds but it's always the same with change


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> The government doesn't control the internet protocol and yet governments around the world use it for many things.
> 
> The government doesn't control a lot of tools they use. If I mail in my ballot from the other side of the world does the government control every post office service that handles it? Why should I have to trust the USPS with my paper ballot?
> 
> People just have to open their minds but it's always the same with change


No, but I'd like them to control the ballot count database.


Also further to your point, the vote is validated after it passes through the untrusted systems.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, but I'd like them to control the ballot count database.
> 
> Also further to your point, the vote is validated after it passes through the untrusted systems.


What?...

The database is controlled by anyone who is willing to run a validator node. Validators are paid a small fee for this service. It would cost orders of magnitude less than setting up polling stations across a country and having everyone drive to it or mail in ballots and having monkeys count them all

Anyone who runs a node can also verify the database themself. I run an ethereum node on a 10 year old laptop. I can connect my ethereum wallets to my own database instead of trusting a server. People can build websites to analyse and display the data in realtime instead of watching/trusting mass media

This is like explaining the internet to an old man in the '90s eh


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

m3s said:


> The government doesn't control the internet protocol and yet governments around the world use it for many things.


And yet hackers continue to gain access to servers and networks. I've read that cybersecurity attacks suffer exponential growth in the last few years. When this problem is solved I'll support on-line voting systems.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> What?...
> 
> The database is controlled by anyone who is willing to run a validator node. Validators are paid a small fee for this service. It would cost orders of magnitude less than setting up polling stations across a country and having everyone drive to it or mail in ballots and having monkeys count them all
> 
> ...


I know how public blockchains work.
I don't think that the government would or even should use a public blockchain for elections.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> And yet hackers continue to gain access to servers and networks. I've read that cybersecurity attacks suffer exponential growth in the last few years. When this problem is solved I'll support on-line voting systems.


It has been solved - it's called a blockchain. That thing Elizabeth Warren wants you to think is evil witch magic. It is a database of immutable transactions

Once a vote is submitted to a blockchain, there is no central government database that can be hacked or manipulated because it was recorded and validated on decentralized nodes



MrMatt said:


> I know how public blockchains work.
> I don't think that the government would or even should use a public blockchain for elections.


This is like saying "I know how the internet works. I don't think we would or even should ever bank online" right before everyone who doesn't know how the internet works started banking online. You don't know how blockchain works

Elections if anything should be public! Today we watch the mainstream media for election results. Public blockchains would just let us all see the data in realtime, and even validate it in realtime or later on our own devices..

Makes too much sense. Stop listening to ol' Elizabeth Warren


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> This is like saying "I know how the internet works. I don't think we would or even should ever bank online" right before everyone who doesn't know how the internet works starting banking online. You don't know how blockchain works


Saying blockchain is the right solution for everything is like saying "we have screws now, time to throw out your hammers"
Sometimes the right solution is a screw, sometimes it's a nail.

There is a big difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
I'm quite aware of how blockchain works, at least the simple ones like bitcoin.
I understand the concepts beyond iota, sidechains etc. It's all very interesting. That's why I follow it.



> Elections if anything should be public! Today we watch the mainstream media for election results. Public blockchains would just let us all see the data in realtime, and even validate it in realtime or later on our own devices..


Yes, that is very nice, and I see the advantages.
But there is nothing stopping elections Canada from publishing live read only updates from their official database.
No blockchain required.

I understand your a big blockchain guy, but it isn't the solution for everything. I think there are serious problems with blockchain voting, and online voting in general.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Saying blockchain is the right solution for everything is like saying "we have screws now, time to throw out your hammers"
> Sometimes the right solution is a screw, sometimes it's a nail.


I agree that people try to use blockchains for everything even if it doesn't make sense

However voting is probably one of if not the best use case for blockchain. It is already being used for voting - I already use it. Open, transparent, immutable, secure transaction is exactly what you want for voting. When Trump or whoever accuses of voter fraud we want a system that can be investigated not a central database that could be manipulated out of sight

USPS is developing a blockchain solution for voting. Several countries are as well. It makes too much sense



MrMatt said:


> But there is nothing stopping elections Canada from publishing live read only updates from their official database.
> No blockchain required.


So why don't they? No transparency.

Publishing read only is not the same at all. I can't validate that myself. A central database is far more vulnerable to cyber security or manipulation

Older folks are used to blindly trusting central systems but the younger generation no longer trusts them for good reason



MrMatt said:


> I think there are serious problems with blockchain voting, and online voting in general.


ID is the biggest limitation right now.

There are already solutions in progress that we should see in the coming months/years. Several countries are lined up to use it at first for student ID etc. These solutions will also include ID privacy

This would allow you to control your own ID and share it securely for certain transactions like voting or KYC.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I agree that people try to use blockchains for everything even if it doesn't make sense
> 
> However voting is probably one of if not the best use case for blockchain. It is already being used for voting - I already use it. Open, transparent, immutable, secure transaction is exactly what you want for voting. When Trump or whoever accuses of voter fraud we want a system that can be investigated not a central database that could be manipulated out of sight
> 
> ...


ID
Trust, and that's a huge one. I don't trust that the government will record how I vote.
Maybe Canada will be okay here, at least for now, but various regimes will definitely go after political opponents.
At the individual level, political discrimination is already widespread, imagine if your lifelong voting history was public to everyone. That's a problem that crypto doesn't solve.

Fraud detection & anonymous voting. That's a nearly impossible combination to manage.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> ID
> Trust, and that's a huge one. I don't trust that the government will record how I vote.


That's the whole point of decentralized validators.

All transactions are processed and attested by decentralized validators to come to a consensus (usually requires a super majority of all nodes to finalize)

The open transparent part is that we can all see the history of votes and what nodes validated/invalidated them. Not the ID that voted for what



MrMatt said:


> Maybe Canada will be okay here, at least for now, but various regimes will definitely go after political opponents.


That is already a problem. That is exactly why we should adopt blockchain technology for voting

Even if Canada is politically honest itself, other countries are trying to manipulate these central databases and maybe already have.

I personally don't trust, actually I have good reason to believe that Canada is in fact horrendous at cyber security



MrMatt said:


> At the individual level, political discrimination is already widespread, imagine if your lifelong voting history was public to everyone. That's a problem that crypto doesn't solve.
> 
> Fraud detection & anonymous voting. That's a nearly impossible combination to manage.


There are already solutions coming to make ID that is also private. The public part is the vote and attestations of that vote as valid. I don't have time to go deeper and there's multiple things being developed

ID that is also private is one of the coolest things coming to blockchains such a Cardano. They only just released smart contracts so this is still probably years away in practice (but schools are already signed up to use it by the way)

There's lots of things to vote and ID before we get to federal elections, and lots of ancient Elizbeth Warrens need to retire meanwhile anyways.

But it makes way too much sense to dismiss entirely


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Online voting has a huge voter intimidation problem. 
Look at union drives, they almost always have more union cards signed than votes cast for the union. Why? Intimidation. 
Mail in voting is problem, but widespread online voting is going to make it worse.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Look at union drives, they almost always have more union cards signed than votes cast for the union. Why? Intimidation.


I'm not familiar with this. You mean public voting?

Private voting on public blockchains is possible. We are not even scratching the surface here

This reminds me of the internet in the '90s. Everyone uses the internet now and they don't understand how it works any better

People are funny. They don't like new things


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Trust, and that's a huge one. I don't trust that the government will record how I vote.


Typo
I don't trust that the government will NOT record how I vote.
That's the biggest concern with online voting. Recording who voted for what.
That's also the biggest concern with blockchain voting, it will record who voted for what.

Sheesh, it's like you don't understand the concept of a free election.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I'm not familiar with this. You mean public voting?


To unionize, they call a union vote.
The way this happens is people sign a union card, a public declaration that they want a union.
Then they might hold a vote.

What really happens is that the pro union guys threaten the anti union guys to sign the cards.
Then the government forces a union on them.
The unions are terrified of free votes, because it reduces their power to intimidate.



> Private voting on public blockchains is possible. We are not even scratching the surface here


yes/no



> This reminds me of the internet in the '90s. Everyone uses the internet now and they don't understand how it works any better


I'd say the average internet user today understands less how it works than the average user in the 90's.
Early adopters tend to have a slightly better understanding.



> People are funny. They don't like new things


Matters, there are generally 3 classes of users for new technology adoption.
I personally like new things.
However I also want the new thing to work better than the old thing before we replace it.

Like, why would we switch a pretty good voting system for a new problematic one?
I like and use online and blockchain technologies more than most, but it's obvious to me that they're the wrong tool for an election.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

There are two major problems with what m3s is suggesting:

intimidation (be it within home, workplace, union, or whatever other social group)
live updates.
There is a reason in majority of democratic parties within 3 days of election day all political activity has to - by law- cease.
It is so that voters can make decision without being manipulated through sociological techniques and emotions. If you provided live turnout information, or even worse live results while polls are open, it would influence the elections themselves. 
If you didn't have the latter in mind, then I apologize, I must have misunderstood


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_This is like explaining the internet to an old man in the '90s eh_

More like trying to explain it to the billions of people who theoretically will be forced to adopt it.

The level of risk that it will never happen, is why the return on capital in crypto is so high.

Good luck with all the "explaining" in a world where people want to "keep it simple".

By the way, the US government created the internet to be used by academics, scientists and the military.

The US laid all the undersea cables around the world to distribute the internet, and they control the flow of all internet traffic.

When China or Iran don't want their people to access the internet......they just switch it off.

Some of us "old" people were using the internet via dial up when some poster "experts" were still wearing diapers.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Open, transparent blockchains are dangerous. Corporations and government have spent billions of dollars to protect their information and data.

They require employees to sign NDA agreements to prevent them from divulging information to competitors.

Experts don't need to hack blockchains. They only need insider information where to look on the blockchain to follow trends and gain private information.

Not that many years ago, to make money to front run the stock markets required hacking into the cable somewhere between the brokers and data centers.

Today they have perfected instant transaction analysis spotting trends to gain the same advantage.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One positive if blockchains ever become popular and predominant.

There will be lots of work in the "blockchain analysis" field to figure out what everyone else is doing.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> There are two major problems with what m3s is suggesting:
> 
> intimidation (be it within home, workplace, union, or whatever other social group)
> live updates.
> ...


Why am I seeing political ads on Saturday night? at 8pm?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

kcowan said:


> Why am I seeing political ads on Saturday night? at 8pm?


I meant majority of countries. Not sure why it says parties.

Because this is Canada. No such rules.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> There are two major problems with what m3s is suggesting:
> 
> intimidation (be it within home, workplace, union, or whatever other social group)
> live updates.
> ...


There is already concepts in development for private votes. For example private pre-registration to verify id for a voter token (this is already how I vote for dao treasuries) Match it with a government benefits/tax refund wallet so you couldn't sell it (or your pay wallet for union votes etc)

I suppose live updates could be an issue. Nothing insurmountable though. Simply slow down the blockchain and finality comes to mind



sags said:


> One positive if blockchains ever become popular and predominant.
> 
> There will be lots of work in the "blockchain analysis" field to figure out what everyone else is doing.


You seem to find fault in everything, yet never anything constructive or positive unless it's sarcasm?

The field is already established enough that MasterCard acquired a company in it

Mastercard acquires CipherTrace to enhance crypto capabilities




sags said:


> Open, transparent blockchains are dangerous. Corporations and government have spent billions of dollars to protect their information and data.
> 
> They require employees to sign NDA agreements to prevent them from divulging information to competitors.
> 
> ...


They already have private blockchains for corporations for this reason. The US government already has them too

Front running, insider trading and lack of transparency is a perfect example why we desperately need blockchains

Even private blockchains are important because we want immutable untampered data for any investigations



sags said:


> Two down......more to follow.


If the government tells you they bombed 2 ISIS leaders you don't question it? If the government tells you they didn't rig an election you don't question it?

Today we can read who they really bombed on reddit because we have access to so many sources now. We don't have to blindly trust mass media like boomers are comfortable doing

Transparency is a basic requirement and expectation for anyone who grew up in the information age


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Open, transparent blockchains are dangerous. Corporations and government have spent billions of dollars to protect their information and data.


Actually in crypto open and transparent is SAFER.
A very large number of private crypto ends up being flawed.



> Experts don't need to hack blockchains. They only need insider information where to look on the blockchain to follow trends and gain private information.


For some yes, for some no.
I could give you my monero address and you wouldn't be able to find out anything.



> Not that many years ago, to make money to front run the stock markets required hacking into the cable somewhere between the brokers and data centers.
> 
> Today they have perfected instant transaction analysis spotting trends to gain the same advantage.


Good, this is a GOOD thing. Arbitrage out those things, smooth the trend, add liquidity.


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Dec 8, 2017)

I agree that blockchain transactions are likely the future of elections. I expect it will not be a perfect solution the first time they make that leap and use it for elections. That said I am sure our current systems took many iterations/improvements and is still not perfect. 

First time I read a white paper on blockchain I thought this is even more useful as a means of a voting type transaction than it is for currency. That being said using it for currency allows much more improvement and understanding as there is money in it versus a concept...

Interesting to read some opinions on this and it will likely be even more interesting to read again in a few years (likely even decades).... 

AlwaysLearning


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AlwaysLearning said:


> First time I read a white paper on blockchain I thought this is even more useful as a means of a voting type transaction than it is for currency.


Unless you want a free election, then it's less useful.
Really the idea of a fully documented, public list of who voted for who is every authoritarians dream.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How do you fix errors in contracts already submitted to the blockchain, if it is secure and untouchable ?

Just this past week, I noticed errors at at the car dealership and lawyers with contracts we signed for final approval.

Had we not caught the errors, they would have been filed with the mistakes.

The data on a blockchain is only as accurate as the data inputted into it.

If errors in a contract are entered into a blockchain how do they get corrected ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I asked valid questions regarding the blockchain, the standard reply has been..._sometime somebody somewhere will create a solution._


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> How do you fix errors in contracts already submitted to the blockchain, if it is secure and untouchable ?
> 
> Just this past week, I noticed errors at at the car dealership and lawyers with contracts we signed for final approval.


You are presented with a contract and you approve it.. same as you did above

What can't happen is the contract cannot be changed after you approved it. Car dealerships are notorious for changing contracts. They did this to me as well.

Sags you are pointing out a perfect example of why we need blockchains


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Unless you want a free election, then it's less useful.
> Really the idea of a fully documented, public list of who voted for who is every authoritarians dream.


The transaction data can be public so that everyone can see the votes without names tied to the votes. I'd like to see data on who voted but not who voted what specifically

A simple solution I already provided is pre-registration. We already pre-register with elections Canada. That database should be private as it is.

You could receive a voting token. DAOs already use these to vote on treasuries etc as I already said. One current problem is that people can sell their voting tokens.

As I already mentioned this could be solved as well but no use going in depth here clearly


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> The transaction data can be public so that everyone can see the votes without names tied to the votes. I'd like to see data on who voted but not who voted what specifically
> 
> A simple solution I already provided is pre-registration. We already pre-register with elections Canada. That database should be private as it is.
> 
> ...


You still haven't addressed the coersion issue with online voting, which also conveniently exists with mail in voting.
Our very straightforward paper ballot system is very good. I don't see a big reason to change it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You still haven't addressed the coersion issue with online voting, which also conveniently exists with mail in voting.
> Our very straightforward paper ballot system is very good. I don't see a big reason to change it.


I don't actually understand what the issue is?

We will have to change the paper system eventually... we don't teach kids how to use an abacus or slide ruler anymore. Heck we don't teach kids shorthand or curvsive or even how to type anymore. They already know how to use Siri and touchscreens before kindergarten. Asking these kids to scribble on paper would be like asking you to carve your vote on a stone tablet ffs

Times change. Counting ballots by hand is already archaic and prone to error


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I don't actually understand what the issue is?


That's obvious. You ignore the requirements of a free election, then don't understand why your flawed solutions aren't acceptable.
They ignore the basic requirements of the task.



> We will have to change the paper system eventually...


Why?



> we don't teach kids how to use an abacus or slide ruler anymore.


Because those are outdated technology.


> Heck we don't teach kids shorthand or curvsive or even how to type anymore.


I think typing is still useful. but it is fading.


> They already know how to use Siri and touchscreens before kindergarten. Asking these kids to scribble on paper would be like asking you to carve your vote on a stone tablet ffs
> 
> Times change. Counting ballots by hand is already archaic and prone to error


Well why not just skip elections all together and just let the Liberal Party execs appoint the leader, no counting required?


I think your first statement is most telling, you simply don't understand why a free election is important.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> You are presented with a contract and you approve it.. same as you did above
> 
> *What can't happen is the contract cannot be changed after you approved it*. Car dealerships are notorious for changing contracts. They did this to me as well.
> 
> Sags you are pointing out a perfect example of why we need blockchains


That is what I am asking. How would a contract containing an error be corrected after it was signed and put on a blockchain ?

Would the response be........sorry but you signed it and are now stuck with it ?

The way it is handled now is to initial the corrections to amend a contract. It happens all the time, as in when supplier prices may change within a contract.

I suspect the only way to correct errors or changes would be to create another contract to post on the blockchain, but then there would be 2 contracts for the same transaction.

The bottom line.....would it be possible to amend a contract already posted on the blockchain ?

If not, it sounds like a "make work" project for lawyers, creating new contracts to reflect any necessary changes to the original contract.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I doubt you do either as you haven't even tried to explain it

To vote in person someone has to be transported to a poll, line up in public on a public street and then be transported home. This seems to have just as much if not more opportunity for coercion than walking to the mailbox to me

You'd have to explain what your fear of coercion is


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> That is what I am asking. How would a contract containing an error be corrected after it was signed and put on a blockchain ?
> 
> Would the response be........sorry but you signed it and are now stuck with it ?
> 
> I suspect another contract would have to be created to correct the error and posted to the blockchain, but then there are 2 contracts for the same transaction on the blockchain.


So you sign a contract with the car dealership. Then you realize the contract was wrong. But you signed it.

Are you saying you can change a contract with the dealership after you signed it? If they agree to this it is only out of goodwill to keep a gullible customer coming back to be scammed again in the future seeing as he probably missed the other tricks (dealerships are full of them.. don't go to dealerships if you don't want to be scammed)

I was saying you have a chance to review the contract before you sign it. Otherwise why would you sign it sags?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

@sags casts his ballot at the poll, walks outside, and then realizes he had a lapse of judgement and voted people's party of canadia by accident

He runs back in demanding they open up the ballot box so he can dig through to find his and strike his vote to fix his honest lapse in judgement. They explain that this is absolutely not possible to change and non-negotiable. He screams that he should be allowed to change his ballot he forgot his drugs this morning and he was thinking about donuts and forgot he is 100% liberal but now he remembers he had a nightmare of the people's party winning last night and oh he is only human we all make mistakes. Then sags begs for a new ballot so he can revote to at least counter his erroneous vote. They decline

Does this make sense to you? Do you think it should be possible for you or anyone else to tamper with your ballot?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I doubt you do either as you haven't even tried to explain it








Free and fair election - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




Sorry, I thought in a thread about elections and voter suppression, the concept of a free and fair election would be known. It's one of the basic premises of a democratic election, and I thought it was obvious.
It is also taught in schools, but as evidenced by the residential schools outrage, most people don't pay attention in school.



> To vote in person someone has to be transported to a poll, line up in public on a public street and then be transported home. This seems to have just as much if not more opportunity for coercion than walking to the mailbox to me
> 
> You'd have to explain what your fear of coercion is


Okay, lets say someone wants you to vote a certain way.
They physically accost and threaten you and watch you vote the way they want, or else.
This is why we have secret ballots.

This happens quite frequently with union cards, which are NOT secret ballots, and often have very high numbers of signatories, then when the secret ballot union vote happens, they're "shocked" that the secret ballot shows low union support. 
How can this be? It's simple, when you threaten people, it works.

Unless you have a physically secure voting location, it's not a free vote. 
This is why I'm actually all ballots that aren't cast in a secure location.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> What can't happen is the contract cannot be changed after you approved it. Car dealerships are notorious for changing contracts. *They did this to me as well.*


No they didn't.
The contract is the agreement between the two parties.

The only valid contract is the one both parties approved. 
If someone, ie a car dealer, makes another contract that you don't approve, it's not a valid contract, and the original stands unless it is voided.

This is fundamental to contract law.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Unless you have a physically secure voting location, it's not a free vote.
> This is why I'm actually all ballots that aren't cast in a secure location.


We can still use blockchains and vote in person. The difference is that we don't scribble on paper and count votes manually by hand

It can still be private and physically secure. More people voted by mail this year which is a horrible system. People should have the option to vote remotely if they are not concerned about being coerced 

It's basically more transparent and secure. People put a lot of blind faith in the current system


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No they didn't.
> The contract is the agreement between the two parties.
> 
> The only valid contract is the one both parties approved.
> ...


I mean they try to change the terms before you sign

sags seems to be saying he wants to change a contract he already signed

It works the same with blockchain transactions - you review before you sign


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> We can still use blockchains and vote in person. The difference is that we don't scribble on paper and count votes manually by hand


There is a trust issue with complex systems.
Paper is simple. We have a box full of paper, and everyone pretty much agrees what the vote was.
With blockchain or digital systems, it is hard to trust them.



> It can still be private and physically secure. More people voted by mail this year which is a horrible system. People should have the option to vote remotely if they are not concerned about being coerced


Nope.
This is like when you see your doctor, they make the husband leave the room before asking the spousal abuse questionnaire.
Also I'm not worried about being coerced, I'm worried about others, also vote buying etc.



> It's basically more transparent and secure. People put a lot of blind faith in the current system


I think our system, is very transparent, and reasonably secure.
It's also very simple and open source system, so you can understand how it is secure.

Remember the big attraction of most blockchains is that they're open source, everyone can see exactly how it works.
That's the point of the Canadian system, we can all see it in action, we know how things are done, and we have multiple auditors to supervise it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I mean they try to change the terms before you sign


That's called "negotiating a contract"

Also it's this is contradicting your original claim



m3s said:


> What can't happen is the contract cannot be changed after you approved it. Car dealerships are notorious for changing contracts. They did this to me as well.


Did they try to change the terms of the contract before you approved it, or after you approved it?
Before you approve the contract, is fine, that's the negotiation phase, that's when the terms are sorted out.
After the contract is approved, you can't change it. You could void the previous contract and make a new one, or you could ammend the contract, which is really saying "the original contract plus this stuff".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

@m3s

I suggest if you want a serious discussion on elections you educate yourself on Election integrity.
You could start at wikipedia. But the basics are well documented by the UN. 

These commitments were further developed in Article 25 of the UN International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR of 1966), namely the need for:

periodic elections at regular intervals;
universal suffrage that includes all sectors of society;
equal suffrage, in the idea of one-person, one-vote;
the right to stand for public office and contest elections;
the rights of all eligible electors to vote;
the use of a secret ballot process;
genuine elections;
elections that reflect the free expression of the will of the people.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

We agreed to terms by handshake.

They later presented terms with additional unspoken fees (pretty much what all stealerships do) I pointed out the bs admin fees before signing and they had to remove them or I could walk away. Blockchain contracts work the same way. You make a deal with an interface and then you approve or reject the final contract

If anybody can change the terms after you signed there is a problem


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I think our system, is very transparent, and reasonably secure.
> It's also very simple and open source system, so you can understand how it is secure.
> 
> Remember the big attraction of most blockchains is that they're open source, everyone can see exactly how it works.
> That's the point of the Canadian system, we can all see it in action, we know how things are done, and we have multiple auditors to supervise it.


Most younger americans have little faith in this system.

Sure you can blindly trust it because you grew up with it and assume that nobody has ever tampered with it. That doesn't mean it can't be tampered with and there's no way for you to verify anything yourself.

I mailed in my ballot because I am out of country and all I can do is blindly trust that it was counted and not tampered with. Heck it was the most basic piece of paper it wouldn't take much to tamper with it at all and humans are known to make mistakes

It's our word against the next Trump's. Trust us. We recounted


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> I doubt you do either as you haven't even tried to explain it
> 
> To vote in person someone has to be transported to a poll, line up in public on a public street and then be transported home. This seems to have just as much if not more opportunity for coercion than walking to the mailbox to me
> 
> You'd have to explain what your fear of coercion is


You do realize they keep paper ballots for recounts and to verify results ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wills, contracts, supplier agreements are al amended and changed all the time. What if a mathematical calculation or assumption is wrong in the contract ?

A system where contracts are set in stone, and "errors must be lived with" with wouldn't be practical or acceptable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Wills, contracts, supplier agreements are al amended and changed all the time. What if a mathematical calculation or assumption is wrong in the contract ?
> 
> A system where contracts are set in stone, and "errors must be lived with" with wouldn't be practical or acceptable.


If there is an error the parties either renegotiate the contract, or they go to court to have the judge renegotiate it.

I will sell you this chocolate bar for $1. Oh you took the chocolate bar, now the price is $10k. 
Sorry it just doesn't work that way.

I think it's hilarious that you think you can just unilaterally change the terms of a contract, that's insane.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I didn't say anyone could "unilaterally" change a contract, but the parties to the contract can amend it anytime they want.

That would be kind of a problem if the contract was on a blockchain and couldn't be altered......as claimed by m3s.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I didn't say anyone could "unilaterally" change a contract, but the parties to the contract can amend it anytime they want.
> 
> That would be kind of a problem if the contract was on a blockchain and couldn't be altered......as claimed by m3s.


Which is true, but nobody is arguing with that. Of course you can cancel a contract and make a new one.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> You do realize they keep paper ballots for recounts and to verify results ?


All the most sophisticated systems ever known have been hacked, forged or manipulated in so many ways

And you think a system of no more than a sack of pieces of paper with scribbles is good because it can be recounted

The genius is there is no transparency so we would never know


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> All the most sophisticated systems ever known have been hacked, forged or manipulated in so many ways
> 
> And you think a system of no more than a sack of pieces of paper with scribbles is good because it can be recounted
> 
> The genius is there is no transparency so we would never know


You're actually arguing against a complex system here.

In person paper voting is a pretty good system. Nobody has actually proposed a better system.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

m3s said:


> ... there's no way for you to verify anything yourself.
> 
> I mailed in my ballot because I am out of country and all I can do is blindly trust that it was counted and not tampered with ...


I get that it's not as traceable and transparant as you'd like.

I'm puzzled why you think you have to blindly trust whether it was counted when Elections Canada says you can use the registration request reference number to find that out.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic21 said:


> I'm puzzled why you think you have to blindly trust whether it was counted when Elections Canada says you can use the registration request reference number to find that out.


There is a big difference

An open and transparent system would let me verify the data anytime I want myself.

Anyone should be able to build apps/software that use the data for tracking/notifications/analytics etc. What elections Canada provides is a phone number. This is just blindly trusting someone to tell me what they see in the system after I call them during business hours and wait on hold for 2 hours

My only source of election results and analytics is the mainstream media. We know the media is not to be trusted as a single source of info anymore. We can only assume a central authority does not also take advantage of our blind trust. No way to verify when they control all the info and data

It's not that I don't trust Elections Canada. It's that this system could be exploited and probably has in other countries and we would never know

Smartphones are showing how dishonest governments can be now. Gone are the days of blind trust


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

You still fail to address the fact that what you are proposing is not a secret ballot.
That's a disqualifier in democracy


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> You still fail to address the fact that what you are proposing is not a secret ballot.
> That's a disqualifier in democracy


He didn't even read the 1 paragraph wikipedia article on Election Integrity, he just wants blockchain for everything.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You're actually arguing against a complex system here.
> 
> In person paper voting is a pretty good system. Nobody has actually proposed a better system.


Do you really think that you can identify this person?! Thanks to our government , we have now many thousands of those


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> Do you really think that you can identify this person?! Thanks to our government , we have now many thousands of those


I don't think you should be permitted to vote without government issued photo ID proving you are a citizen.
Also if you can't show your face to someone because you practice gender discrimination, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think you should be permitted to vote without government issued photo ID proving you are a citizen.
> Also if you can't show your face to someone because you practice gender discrimination, that's your problem, not mine.


The problem that on government issued IDs is exactly same photo you see above 😁. 
To make it’s secure , you need AFIS (fingerprint identification) or eye identification, but there will be privacy issue


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> The problem that on government issued IDs is exactly same photo you see above 😁.
> To make it’s secure , you need AFIS (fingerprint identification) or eye identification, but there will be privacy issue


Okay, a passport photo.




__





Passport photos - Canada.ca


Passport photos




www.canada.ca


----------

