4

This question already has an answer here:

Has the fundamental problem in cryptovoting, one person, one vote, in a completely decentralized or blockchain centric manner been solved?

In other words, how can votes be allocated in a decentralized manner?

The intent of this question presupposes that vote allocation is not delivered by a state, that a blockchain itself can at the very least implement a completely basic, pure democracy: truly one person, one vote.

How can this intent be implemented?

marked as duplicate by dchapes, cdecker, Tony, Mathias711, Dennis Kriechel Jul 2 '14 at 8:53

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    Wouldn't this be better on Crypto.SE? – Nate Eldredge May 28 '14 at 5:33
  • 2
    The study of secure voting protocols has a long history within cryptography, and is discussed in many general crypto textbooks. I would say it's definitely on topic there. They even have a "voting" tag. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about what kind of thinking is required. – Nate Eldredge May 28 '14 at 12:49
  • 1
    But I'm not sure why you believe that proof of stake, consensus or abstract assets are necessarily needed to solve the voting problem; I believe there are many other approaches. But anyway, your question, your decision. – Nate Eldredge May 28 '14 at 14:34
  • 2
    I don't think it makes sense to migrate it, because there are questions like it there already, e.g. Unique, anonymous online authentication, Approach towards anonymous e-voting. Let's just leave the question here and see what our community comes up with. – Although, I'd suggest to change the spin of the question a bit, e.g. Could the blockchain technology be used to facilitate anonymous voting, while preventing voters from registering twice? If yes, how could that work? – Murch May 28 '14 at 17:49
0

This problem is not solved by the blockchain or the Bitcoin protocol. By "cryptovoting" I'm assuming that you mean that an individual signs his or her vote with his or her private key. The problem is that anybody can generate a new private key on a whim. The private key would have to be verifiably tied to one individual's identity, and that individual's identity would have to be exclusive to all other entities in the voting network. (DNAcoin maybe? kinda cool, kinda scary)

Note: I just googled DNAcoin and obviously found a thread on Bitcoin talk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=187991.0

While a Bitcoin-based voting system could implement a "1 vote per 1 private key" rule, the pseudo-anonymous nature of the Bitcoin network makes it nearly impossible to know if an individual has generated two private keys (unless the transactions make it apparent that it is the same individual). Generating a private key is as easy as flipping a coin 256 times and recording the results as 1 or 0, then converting that into hex (or tonal if you're Luke-jr).

-2

Except if a Voting Authority of the State assign the keys in the first place. Maybe it could issue VoteCoin e.g. where the price to buy it is not fluctuating, allowing it to fund referendums. It also allows for voting on whether to have a referendum or not, etc. Too many possibilities.

  • 1
    Please use complete sentences to formulate your answer. It would also be more beneficial if you actually elaborated on the question's answer, instead of going off on a tangent. – Murch May 30 '14 at 10:48