Posted on 09/11/2016 11:47:57 AM PDT by Hostage
"Postal service wants to begin with small corporate and civic elections before ramping up to handle a full parliamentary election."
Australia Post is looking to move into the business of running elections, and plans to use the blockchain as a central pillar of its plan.
In a submission to the Victorian Electoral Matters Committee, the government-owned postal service said community expectations were driving the push towards digital voting, and it would be looking to put its prior work with blockchain to use.
"The emergence of crypto currencies on the technology known as blockchain have highlighted opportunities to repurpose that technology to capture various digital transactions in immutable, distributed and secure ways," Australia Post State Director, Victorian Government and Tasmania, Tim Adamson, said in the submission.
(Excerpt) Read more at zdnet.com ...
True and blockchain is tried and tested for retrieval of value. No hacker of any sort has been able to add value to their bitcoin account without someone allocating the value to them. That only means it does that, and doesn't solve registration fraud.
if somebody can legitimately add, subtract and modify data in it then somebody can ILLEGITIMATELY add, subtract and modify data. Nothing is unhackable,
Not with a blockchain. Nobody has ever illegitimately added value to their public key. Someone else had to send the value to that key. The vote privilege would leverage that unhackability. Of course it does not solve the registration problems: illegimate registrations, colluding registrars, double (or more) registrations by the same person, etc. All those will take more work to solve.
They could have. But so far there is no evidence that blockchain software is gamed. The main reason for that is that the software is based on a running hash and all network nodes (including the one I run) check the running hash and reject new additions that don't have the correct running hash. Using my full node, with the source code fully under my control (I compiled my own), I cannot alter it in such a way to fool other nodes into accepting a fraudulent transaction. In short, I cannot issue myself any bitcoins. First because I personally am not smart enough to do so. Second, because it hasn't happened in any known case.
The bottom line is by rigorously defining a restricted protocol to add transactions to the block chain, a software failure or intentional malicious software change will only waste the network's time but will not corrupt the blockchain.
OK so really are talking doing the database as a blockchain. Would have been nice if you’d have just said that instead insisting there is no DB.
As for hacking never forget the lesson of Kevin Mitnick. Once the most famous hacker on the planet, never once hacked through computer savvy. All somebody has to do to hack the blockchain is get the key of one of the workers in the registrar’s office that has the ability to work with the data in the chain.
As I’ve been pointing out with him over and over, that fraud all happens BEFORE the chain. It’s all about gaming the machines to put fraudulent data IN the chain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.