Thread context
4 posts in path
Root
@mattblaze@federate.social
Open
@mattblaze@federate.social
One of the reasons I'm skeptical of the practicality of e2e verifiable voting schemes is that every system proposed so far is fragile. A single mishap can result in an unverifiable election (and, in w
Ancestor 2
@mattblaze@federate.social
Open
@mattblaze@federate.social
Fortunately, voting in scholarly societies (like IACR) is relatively low stakes, as elections go.
Parent
@mattblaze@federate.social
Open
@mattblaze@federate.social
The other big practical problem with e2e verifiable voting schemes is that their mathematical complexity, coupled with the existence of a voting receipt, can make it very hard to assure nonspecialists
Tech and systems, Europe and Ukraine, democracy and defense, energy and science. And whatever else I find interesting, I don't discriminate. Mostly English, occasionally Finnish
mas.to
Tech and systems, Europe and Ukraine, democracy and defense, energy and science. And whatever else I find interesting, I don't discriminate. Mostly English, occasionally Finnish
mas.to
@osma@mas.to
·
Nov 23, 2025
This. The more high stakes a vote is, the more important that it is transparently valid even to a casual observer. Where valid often is, at once, confidential, observable, accessible and free from coercion. Those are hard requirements to meet.
@mattblaze@federate.social
View full thread on mas.to