I am familiar with his digital cash and it is the foundation of our voting architecture.
Has the cryptography behind the voting architecture changed? If I remember correctly I think you were at some point planning on using linkable ring signatures to protect voter privacy, were you not? I assume the change is due to the fact that using ring signatures would require very large signatures if we wanted to provide sufficient privacy (hiding in a large enough group) for voters.
If you are using blinded signatures, what steps are being taken to prevent the signer from creating fake votes to take over the votes of people who sign up for an election but don't bother to vote? Are the blinded signatures using multisig or better yet threshold sigs (is a blinded threshold sig doable?) to reduce the chance of collusion to create fake votes? Are there economic incentives designed in the voting system to encourage everyone who signed up for the election to cast a vote (even if the vote is to say they refuse to vote)? For example, the voter could put up some fixed amount of money that goes into a common pool when registering for the election (and getting their blinded token signed), and then after the period to sign up for the election ended an new period would open up to allow users to anonymously associate their signed unblinded tokens to a new pseudonymous public key (with which they sign the ballots they will later cast) and provide a new blinded token to be signed with another set of keys by the token signers. After this second period ended, the election could finally open up to accept ballots and the voters would also be able to reveal the second signed blinded token to withdraw the fixed fund from the common pool. The economic motivation to get their money back would mean that nearly all of the people who signed up would broadcast their unblinded tokens. If the number of valid signed unblinded tokens ever exceeded the number of blinded tokens that were signed, everyone would know the signers were manipulating the results and the results of the election could not be trusted. In fact, the signers could put up some amount of funds into an escrow which they would lose if this manipulation were to ever happen. That way even if they didn't care about their reputation, they wouldn't even have an economic motivation to create fake signed tokens in order to steal the voters' temporary deposits.
Topic: What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (Read 17508 times)
