Somebody on discord brought this to my attention:
If the whole point of this discussion is to advertise an altcoin, please move your threads to altcoins area or expect to see it moved there.
Topic: Democrazy fixed: 1 human puzzle = 1 vote (Read 111 times)
If the whole point of this discussion is to advertise an altcoin, please move your threads to altcoins area or expect to see it moved there.
This has been talked about in many developed nations, to prevent stuff that aristocracy doesn't want. If you feel like the politician you are rooting for, or the betterment of your nation depends on the people who would fail a puzzle, then you are thinking that you are smarter than certain people and you would be doing better (or at the very least, some other people will do better even if you fail).
This is basically aristocracy with extra layers. Even though the result "could" be better, because in the end people who are "smarter" by a tangible thing would be able to vote, we are also talking about not giving a voice to everyone, and that is never democracy.
You may not care about that, then it should be a fine idea for you. I believe a nation should be going worse, if it means people who voted that way wants it to get worse, we have seen it plenty of times, but that just means people are ruled like how they wanted to.
This is basically aristocracy with extra layers. Even though the result "could" be better, because in the end people who are "smarter" by a tangible thing would be able to vote, we are also talking about not giving a voice to everyone, and that is never democracy.
You may not care about that, then it should be a fine idea for you. I believe a nation should be going worse, if it means people who voted that way wants it to get worse, we have seen it plenty of times, but that just means people are ruled like how they wanted to.
overly complicated. simple is best.
Vote in person only.
Vote in person only.
This has been subdued by infiltration and system infiltration by intelligence services. The counting and transmission of votes is manipulated. You may believe that this is not happening, but then you "believe" in democrazy, just like "believing in god".
Here is now a different system presented where voting can be verified/analyzed by system software and users, so there is no more believe but mathematical proof and verification by users themselfes.
I Agree that the various systems have been compromised.
But most of that is due to the way the votes are counted.
I have noticed also that the MORE complicated a system is the MORE likely there will be corruption if there are People in the loop.
Back to keeping it simple. 1 person. 1 vote. Counted immediately not overnight not 3 days later. Polls open. Counts are taken live. Polls close, voting is done. Recorded live from the second the polls open to the polls close. The count the people coming in and leaving the total should be exactly the number of votes taken at that poll.
Use paper only. pencil only.
(debatable idea)
polls should also ALWAYS be handled by the opposing party in a dual party system So if the expected outcome is for one party the the opposing party handles the polls for that area. if its close then 50/50 (this idea is debatable)
The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable time.
...
...
Also, you must consider the problem of a human solving more than one puzzle and the problem of one human solving another human's puzzle.
That is the most difficult part. You will need to solve it before considering anything else.
The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable time.
~
The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.
~
The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.
If you go to the subway station that links the main railway station with the subway system where a lot of people from outside the capital try to buy their tickets from those automatic machines you're going to see that the nearby attendants spend more time instructing somebody how to do it that they would have sold 100 tickets by themselves. If you think less than 10 percent of the population even in highly educated countries will fail a test of picking the cat and the dog pictures or not type 6 when asked how much is 2 plus 3 you're overconfident in the human race capabilities.
You're overcomplicating things when we should look at the reasons we have a secret vote and why are we still doing this.
Your system doesn't prevent somebody from voting with others' identities, and furthermore, it exposes the voter to blackmail since any outside party will be able to see how he has cast his vote and force him to change. If you make this impossible then it will be open to abuse since nobody will be able to verify if his vote was indeed counted the right way.
overly complicated. simple is best.
Vote in person only.
Vote in person only.
This has been subdued by infiltration and system infiltration by intelligence services. The counting and transmission of votes is manipulated. You may believe that this is not happening, but then you "believe" in democrazy, just like "believing in god".
Here is now a different system presented where voting can be verified/analyzed by system software and users, so there is no more believe but mathematical proof and verification by users themselfes.
Somebody on discord brought this to my attention:
https://www.idena.io/
Proof of Person blockchain.
Don't know yet how it works, but I will look into it ! =D
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
overly complicated. simple is best.
Vote in person only.
Vote in person only.
The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable time.
The human-only puzzle can be generated by a computer algorithm, the computer algorithm must not know the solution before hand.
The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.
Perhaps a slightly wrong answer, which may by typical for humans but not computers might also be of some value to determine the humanness of the voter. Even multiple puzzles could be tried to detect a human brain from a deep learning/machine learning brain.
Once the solved puzzle(s) are analyzed and determined to originate from a human brain, the voter may proceed and cast their vote.
The solution to the puzzles are then broadcasted to a peep 2 peer/distributed system where they are collected.
Before transmission these puzzle solutions + votes are lightly hashed by the voter to prevent manipulation allong the communication line.
Encrypted communication channels with strong miners may be preferred where strong mines can communicate over an encrypted channel and re-hash/re-secure the puzzle solution + vote data with a stronger hash.
The stronger hashed puzzle solution + vote data is then send back to the voter for verification/checking that it is indeed his cast vote.
The voter has a signature which allows the votes to re-call his vote if any irregularity is detected by the voter within period V... in which V is the legal time within votes may be record into the system. Any votes arriving beyond V are invalid.
The voter must have a grace period to recall any wrongly or manipulated votes.
This recall time will be R on top of V so it will be RT = V+R
RT = RecallTime
From 0 to RT the voter may issue re-call transmissions to inform the network that his votes has been manipulated and should be recalled and not counted in the vote totalling.
Or at the very least the vote should be marked as "invalid/recalled" by voter.
To compensate for the vote loss, the voter may re-cast his vote one time by contacting another miner and proceeding to vote again.
This voting times will be VR for votes recalled and will be placed on top of
V+R so it will be V+R+VR thus there will be a time penalty for the voter to do it again to prevent abuse/unnecessary communications with the voting system at the expense of the voters time.
Now one more recall period is issued. V+R+VR+R2 where the voter again may re-call his vote.
As they say, three times is a lucky charm.
This may then be done one last time
V1+R1+VR1 + R2 + VR2 + R3
So basically we can clean this up as:
V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3
So they voter may broadcast his vote to the system 3 times and he may recall it 3 times.
Where the votes must have gone via a different miner for each V1, V2, V3.
By marking recalled votes in the system, this gives users to possibility to indicate that they believe irregularties or manipulation has occured and then others can investigate the systems of these miners and if they ammount of re-called votes is very high, votes can then decide to not use those miners anymore and thus the system can become a "self-cleaning" system were manipulating systems are out-expelled from the system.
Finally one the total voting period is over:
TV = V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3
the votes are tallied/summed by the p2p system, everybody participating with a node can then start summing the results and see the voting results.
What is left to do is an injection system where nominees/groups can inject themselfes into the system ready to be voted upon.
Such an injection system is necessary as well to prevent "pre-selected candidates" by a small control group.
Such an injection system may be and will possibly be abused though it will be necessary to store all injectees into a nice tree of some sorts and a search system should be enabled so votes can search for the parties or groups or people they want to vote for.
One possible idea which comes to mind is that nominees can create a public key/number which they can put on their cards/websites/e-mails etc to inform the voters that it is them.
The voter can then search for this public key in the system. These public keys are also distributed among the p2p system and the associated nominee data.
The voter can thus cast it's vote by including this public key in it's vote as the nominee.
Additional data about the candidate/nominee should also be included into the system. So that the system itself also becomes a slight information distribution system, such that voters can read about intentions of the candidate/nominee especially in light with todays boycotts/bans of certain candidates from existing media/communication channels.
Thus the candidate will have a remaining/functioning communication channel to broadcast it's view points for the voter to decide upon.
This data may be limited to within reasonable limits, 1 megabyte of data seems reasonable per candidate, where an expected maximum candidate is 1000.
In case more and more candidates are added to the system, this upper limit can start to shrink down to a minimum limit of 32 kilobytes.
In the case of system/candidate attack, this should still allow some reasonable ammount of information to be acquired/stored/broadcasted.
To inject candidate information into the system should require some light mining by the candidate themselfes to prevent candidate spam.
To further prevent candidate spam there will be an opening time when the system can be injected with candidate information.
This date will be D.
The system itself will present the candidate again with a human-only-solveable puzzle. The candidate must solve this puzzle first.
Once this puzzle is solved the candidate will be injected legally into the system. (Additional some light mining could be introduced, but barring candidates by technical means does not feel good, thus a human-only solveable puzzle should be sufficient).
After DT time this candidate period will be over.
Where DT is the time candidates have to inject themselfes into the system.
DT could be set to 1 day.
After DT has passed voting can begin. Where V + R and such begin.
This should keep candidate spam to a minimum.
In case it's still to high. DT can be lowered to 1 hour right before voting begins.
(Consider this document/idea an initial draft for such a proposed system !)
Bye for now,
Skybuck Flying ! =D
The human-only puzzle can be generated by a computer algorithm, the computer algorithm must not know the solution before hand.
The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.
Perhaps a slightly wrong answer, which may by typical for humans but not computers might also be of some value to determine the humanness of the voter. Even multiple puzzles could be tried to detect a human brain from a deep learning/machine learning brain.
Once the solved puzzle(s) are analyzed and determined to originate from a human brain, the voter may proceed and cast their vote.
The solution to the puzzles are then broadcasted to a peep 2 peer/distributed system where they are collected.
Before transmission these puzzle solutions + votes are lightly hashed by the voter to prevent manipulation allong the communication line.
Encrypted communication channels with strong miners may be preferred where strong mines can communicate over an encrypted channel and re-hash/re-secure the puzzle solution + vote data with a stronger hash.
The stronger hashed puzzle solution + vote data is then send back to the voter for verification/checking that it is indeed his cast vote.
The voter has a signature which allows the votes to re-call his vote if any irregularity is detected by the voter within period V... in which V is the legal time within votes may be record into the system. Any votes arriving beyond V are invalid.
The voter must have a grace period to recall any wrongly or manipulated votes.
This recall time will be R on top of V so it will be RT = V+R
RT = RecallTime
From 0 to RT the voter may issue re-call transmissions to inform the network that his votes has been manipulated and should be recalled and not counted in the vote totalling.
Or at the very least the vote should be marked as "invalid/recalled" by voter.
To compensate for the vote loss, the voter may re-cast his vote one time by contacting another miner and proceeding to vote again.
This voting times will be VR for votes recalled and will be placed on top of
V+R so it will be V+R+VR thus there will be a time penalty for the voter to do it again to prevent abuse/unnecessary communications with the voting system at the expense of the voters time.
Now one more recall period is issued. V+R+VR+R2 where the voter again may re-call his vote.
As they say, three times is a lucky charm.
This may then be done one last time
V1+R1+VR1 + R2 + VR2 + R3
So basically we can clean this up as:
V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3
So they voter may broadcast his vote to the system 3 times and he may recall it 3 times.
Where the votes must have gone via a different miner for each V1, V2, V3.
By marking recalled votes in the system, this gives users to possibility to indicate that they believe irregularties or manipulation has occured and then others can investigate the systems of these miners and if they ammount of re-called votes is very high, votes can then decide to not use those miners anymore and thus the system can become a "self-cleaning" system were manipulating systems are out-expelled from the system.
Finally one the total voting period is over:
TV = V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3
the votes are tallied/summed by the p2p system, everybody participating with a node can then start summing the results and see the voting results.
What is left to do is an injection system where nominees/groups can inject themselfes into the system ready to be voted upon.
Such an injection system is necessary as well to prevent "pre-selected candidates" by a small control group.
Such an injection system may be and will possibly be abused though it will be necessary to store all injectees into a nice tree of some sorts and a search system should be enabled so votes can search for the parties or groups or people they want to vote for.
One possible idea which comes to mind is that nominees can create a public key/number which they can put on their cards/websites/e-mails etc to inform the voters that it is them.
The voter can then search for this public key in the system. These public keys are also distributed among the p2p system and the associated nominee data.
The voter can thus cast it's vote by including this public key in it's vote as the nominee.
Additional data about the candidate/nominee should also be included into the system. So that the system itself also becomes a slight information distribution system, such that voters can read about intentions of the candidate/nominee especially in light with todays boycotts/bans of certain candidates from existing media/communication channels.
Thus the candidate will have a remaining/functioning communication channel to broadcast it's view points for the voter to decide upon.
This data may be limited to within reasonable limits, 1 megabyte of data seems reasonable per candidate, where an expected maximum candidate is 1000.
In case more and more candidates are added to the system, this upper limit can start to shrink down to a minimum limit of 32 kilobytes.
In the case of system/candidate attack, this should still allow some reasonable ammount of information to be acquired/stored/broadcasted.
To inject candidate information into the system should require some light mining by the candidate themselfes to prevent candidate spam.
To further prevent candidate spam there will be an opening time when the system can be injected with candidate information.
This date will be D.
The system itself will present the candidate again with a human-only-solveable puzzle. The candidate must solve this puzzle first.
Once this puzzle is solved the candidate will be injected legally into the system. (Additional some light mining could be introduced, but barring candidates by technical means does not feel good, thus a human-only solveable puzzle should be sufficient).
After DT time this candidate period will be over.
Where DT is the time candidates have to inject themselfes into the system.
DT could be set to 1 day.
After DT has passed voting can begin. Where V + R and such begin.
This should keep candidate spam to a minimum.
In case it's still to high. DT can be lowered to 1 hour right before voting begins.
(Consider this document/idea an initial draft for such a proposed system !)
Bye for now,
Skybuck Flying ! =D
Jump to: