> Blockchains provide a verifiably immutable log. This is the exact primitive you want for elections - tamper-proof logging.
i disagree. the exact primitive you want is a verifiable counter, where people can be verified as being allowed to add one to the counter, with no ability to determine who added to which counter. that is different from a verifiably immutable log.
also, there are scenarios where a blockchain can be mutated, and i bet you that the election of a country would provide a very enticing target for subverting the blockchain.
> That isn't a defense of this article, or of any of the current blockchain/election projects, but in principle, the idea makes sense.
but in practice, maybe it doesn't? elections aren't some academic thing.
i disagree. the exact primitive you want is a verifiable counter, where people can be verified as being allowed to add one to the counter, with no ability to determine who added to which counter. that is different from a verifiably immutable log.
also, there are scenarios where a blockchain can be mutated, and i bet you that the election of a country would provide a very enticing target for subverting the blockchain.
> That isn't a defense of this article, or of any of the current blockchain/election projects, but in principle, the idea makes sense.
but in practice, maybe it doesn't? elections aren't some academic thing.