Who decides to commit changes though? A human. A human who can be corrupt
I’m not entirely sure what your getting at here, but git can be run as democratically as a crypto currency where the canonical version of the project is the one with the longest chain. Seems like a bad idea to me though. I think you may be assuming the way most people rely on github/gitlab etc as an inherent part of the system, when it’s really just the most convenient way of doing things.
The best use case for blockchains in my opinion is elections.
I’ll believe it when I see a real implementation. I think the problem is anonymity, I don’t see how we can set a system up such that the results are auditable but also impossible for anyone to tie a specific vote to a specific person.
I’m not entirely sure what your getting at here, but git can be run as democratically as a crypto currency where the canonical version of the project is the one with the longest chain.
Which means elections. Which means a dude/committee in charge of a server. See the problem?
I’ll believe it when I see a real implementation. I think the problem is anonymity, I don’t see how we can set a system up such that the results are auditable but also impossible for anyone to tie a specific vote to a specific person.
This is a very very interesting topic that I’ve spent a rlly long time thinking about. I wish I had more energy to go in depth for this. The gist is this:
There will be a tradeoff between anonymity and “vote buying”.
You can have absolute anonymity by implementing a monero like blockchain. Each registered voter address gets one token. The thing that you can cast a vote for is also an address. The voter sends this token to an unknown address (that theoretically belongs to the voter themselves). Then, the voter votes from this address. This way, absolute anonymity is maintained as noone knows who sent the token to the address in the middle. BUT. I could buy votes like this too. I could bribe a voter to send their token to the middle address, which I control.
To prevent voter buying, you can have an open blockchain where all transactions are visible to everyone. However, you get pseudo anonymity here. Every registered voter address gets one token like above. No one except for the election commission knows which address belongs to whom. So while the election commission cannot manipulate votes, it can leak who voted for whom.
Now that being said, normal elections aren’t as theoretically anonymous as well. For ballots, your name is on the envelope. A compromised election commission could leak this info as well. For EVMs, one line of code could leak who you are. The person granting you entry can note down your information. The EVM can ping this person as to which vote was cast while you were in there.
Hence, in my opinion, the second option of the open blockchain is the best one provided that the election commission is under strict regulation (which it generally is in any case).
You said you could democratically manage git, hence bypassing blockchains. Democracy means elections (unless you mean some exotic form of democracy like Athenian democracy). But elections need to be conducted.
I said you would need a central authority (like an election commission) to conduct elections. You said that there was no need for that. So I asked for your method of conducting elections.
The dude who owns the election server won’t be able to manipulate results in any way.
Sure he will. He can just ignore votes for one candidate and not add them to the chain. Blockchains are only resistant to manipulation if they’re distributed and people agree on the canonical version. Even then if enough people agree to manipulate them they can, like they did with Ethereum.
The integrity of blockchains isn’t immune from malicious activity. It is just way way harder to be manipulated. No blockchain means 1 server needs to be manipulated. Blockchain means more than 1 servers need to be manipulated.
Even when it becomes smarter than humans in the future, I would still oppose this idea. We humans have seemingly benevolent leaders who become malevolent. At least we can replace them as they are around as smart as us. A malevolent creature that is waaay smarter than us that rules over us? No thanks.
Who decides to commit changes though? A human. A human who can be corrupt.
The best use case for blockchains in my opinion is elections. The dude who owns the election server won’t be able to manipulate results in any way.
While manipulating results isn’t impossible in case of a blockchain, it is still very very difficult.
I’m not entirely sure what your getting at here, but git can be run as democratically as a crypto currency where the canonical version of the project is the one with the longest chain. Seems like a bad idea to me though. I think you may be assuming the way most people rely on github/gitlab etc as an inherent part of the system, when it’s really just the most convenient way of doing things.
I’ll believe it when I see a real implementation. I think the problem is anonymity, I don’t see how we can set a system up such that the results are auditable but also impossible for anyone to tie a specific vote to a specific person.
Which means elections. Which means a dude/committee in charge of a server. See the problem?
This is a very very interesting topic that I’ve spent a rlly long time thinking about. I wish I had more energy to go in depth for this. The gist is this:
There will be a tradeoff between anonymity and “vote buying”.
You can have absolute anonymity by implementing a monero like blockchain. Each registered voter address gets one token. The thing that you can cast a vote for is also an address. The voter sends this token to an unknown address (that theoretically belongs to the voter themselves). Then, the voter votes from this address. This way, absolute anonymity is maintained as noone knows who sent the token to the address in the middle. BUT. I could buy votes like this too. I could bribe a voter to send their token to the middle address, which I control.
To prevent voter buying, you can have an open blockchain where all transactions are visible to everyone. However, you get pseudo anonymity here. Every registered voter address gets one token like above. No one except for the election commission knows which address belongs to whom. So while the election commission cannot manipulate votes, it can leak who voted for whom.
Now that being said, normal elections aren’t as theoretically anonymous as well. For ballots, your name is on the envelope. A compromised election commission could leak this info as well. For EVMs, one line of code could leak who you are. The person granting you entry can note down your information. The EVM can ping this person as to which vote was cast while you were in there.
Hence, in my opinion, the second option of the open blockchain is the best one provided that the election commission is under strict regulation (which it generally is in any case).
No you don’t need a centralized server or a committee.
So who conducts elections then?
I don’t know what you are talking about.
You said you could democratically manage git, hence bypassing blockchains. Democracy means elections (unless you mean some exotic form of democracy like Athenian democracy). But elections need to be conducted.
I said you would need a central authority (like an election commission) to conduct elections. You said that there was no need for that. So I asked for your method of conducting elections.
Sure he will. He can just ignore votes for one candidate and not add them to the chain. Blockchains are only resistant to manipulation if they’re distributed and people agree on the canonical version. Even then if enough people agree to manipulate them they can, like they did with Ethereum.
The integrity of blockchains isn’t immune from malicious activity. It is just way way harder to be manipulated. No blockchain means 1 server needs to be manipulated. Blockchain means more than 1 servers need to be manipulated.
You actually make a better case for replacing politicians with benevolent AI than for replacing ballots with transactions on a blockchain.
How so? AI is not smarter than people.
Even when it becomes smarter than humans in the future, I would still oppose this idea. We humans have seemingly benevolent leaders who become malevolent. At least we can replace them as they are around as smart as us. A malevolent creature that is waaay smarter than us that rules over us? No thanks.