Oddbean

Ok thanks. It’s like Europe every country (USA - state) has his own ‘rules’. But the problem is the centralization of to much things. Like Brussel decide now so much in EU. This must be Washington in USA. Its all about control like I show in one of my artworks https://nostrcheck.me/media/43baaf0c28e6cfb195b17ee083e19eb3a4afdfac54d9b6baf170270ed193e34c/2de25a8ba63f282c1b477033ab430b6d8fe82827808b87147c9fb7dd034f312a.webp

the Venezuelan system for elections is actually good, just so happens that the government is deeply corrupted nostr:nevent1qqs0zrp53alyjz3dmd8gfmy9dprae5u9855q5we6leazph2maslnn0gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygqyey2a4mlw8qchlfe5g39vacus4qnflevppv3yre0xm56rm7lveypsgqqqqqqsv0lqwa

It would be if the states using those machines didn’t want to have the option to cheat If every state wanted an honest election they would have paper ballots like FL and they would count them all on election day

I find it fascinating on here of all the people that are calling for no machines and only paper ballots. As if paper ballots makes the system MORE secure. The irony is you just put your family’s wealth (or at least, you should have) out of paper fiat and into a digital Bitcoin… Whatever you do, don’t let your friends and family that you are trying to talk into Bitcoin know that you think paper ballots are the solution for a nation with 345 million citizens. If they have half a brain, they’ll have hard questions for you.

An early concept of end-to-end (E2E) verifiable voting systems, designed to provide both transparency and privacy in elections. One of the most well-known examples of this type of system is called Prêt à Voter (French for “Ready to Vote”), introduced by David Chaum, a pioneer in cryptographic voting. Here’s a high-level breakdown of how it works: Core Concepts 1. Paper Ballots with Encrypted Codes: Each voter receives a ballot with a list of candidates and an associated encrypted code. The code corresponds to the voter’s choice but is encrypted so that no one, not even the election officials, knows the chosen candidate directly. 2. Separation of Choice and Identity: After marking their choice, the voter tears off a part of the ballot, keeping their selection and a unique encrypted identifier or code. This part of the ballot can be used later to verify that their vote was correctly recorded without revealing which choice they made. 3. Cryptographic Verification: Once the votes are counted, a list of encrypted codes (not the candidates themselves) is published online. Voters can verify that the code associated with their vote appears on this list, proving that their vote was correctly recorded. Only the voter can link this code to their actual choice, preserving privacy. 4. Auditable Transparency: To detect manipulation, independent auditors can verify that the encrypted votes were properly processed through cryptographic proofs, and that the final tally matches the published codes. This process uses a type of zero-knowledge proof, which allows verifying a truth without revealing any actual private data. Advantages • Transparency and Trust: The system offers verifiable assurance that all votes are counted accurately, with tamper-evidence at every step. • Privacy: Voters verify their vote was recorded without disclosing their choice to anyone else. • Security: Since the system relies on cryptographic proofs, it’s difficult for an attacker to alter the outcome without detection. Later Innovations Other similar systems include Scantegrity (used in Takoma Park, Maryland, in 2009), which also employed a verifiable optical scan system, and Helios, an online voting system used in smaller-scale elections that combines E2E verifiability with digital-only ballots.

Como é bom viver em uma país livre que pelo menos se pode criticar as urnas eletrônicas nostr:nevent1qqs0zrp53alyjz3dmd8gfmy9dprae5u9855q5we6leazph2maslnn0gpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ez6un9d3shjtnpwpcz7q3qqny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysgs4rn6

It's not "insane". It's either stupid or evil. Let me explain: If we're assuming the government is incompetent, then it's a bug. If we're assuming The government is malicious, then it's a feature.

I believe this is a symbol of a lack in education. Our society needs to get out of this centrally mandated edu system. Maybe we should base education on rabbit holes - leading to so much more discovery and understanding

Election commission officials should be able to reboot the machine and run diagnostic tools between elections. One of those tools could be an OS code checker that reads the checksum and compares it to official packages.

Openness makes it not just readable to them, but to everyone. If they can show the public that the checksum matches, and the code shows equality, then everyone's happy. If they keep it to themselves then they'll probably just cause too much suspicion. Why do it that way when they could fully open it up and remove that suspicion?

Checksums either match or they don't. To keep their election commissions from being partisan, and therefore lying about the match, they should compose their commission with equal amounts of both parties, watching each other.

We all know why, they are just putting it right in your face now that they are going to cheat and no one can do a thing about it before the election https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1851061826815213836

Indeed! People who don't know better (government employees) think open source = not secure. But mostly, in most state governments it is about cronyism, so it is incompetence AND CORRUPTION. INSANE, INDEED!

It’s insane the US has closed source, proprietary voting systems, we can’t trust or verify. Now I’m in the paper ballot with ID camp, but IF WE MUST use electronic voting, then the code should be open source.

I’m curious if someone has a technical answer to my questions, but of course, they are rhetorical in that I've asked them myself and don't have good answers; however, I try to stay humble and recognize I will never have all the answers, so I’m genuinely interested in if anyone else has good answers. Using open-source software doesn't mean much unless you can verify that what you're running is the software. In this case, I don't think validating that voting machines are actually running open-source software is feasible. Therefore, voters must trust election officials; thus, whether the voting machine uses open-source software doesn't matter for election integrity because the result is the same: trust in election officials. This is emblematic of Bitcoin's anomalous nature, which most still don't fully grasp: it’s a technical breakthrough solution that fixes a social problem. However, most technical solutions don't fix social problems; they fix technical problems, which means we need social solutions to social problems like election integrity.