Timeline for How could I make the results of a yes/no vote inaccessible unless it's unanimous in the affirmative, without a trusted third party?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 22:26 | comment | added | jez | @Kevin but whenever you try to confer, you don’t know whether the answer you get is truthful | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 17:30 | comment | added | jez | Also, I would say we have to assume some limitation somewhere on the ability to confer post-hoc. Otherwise it’s trivially unsolvable: a “no” voter can simply ask all other “no” voters to identify themselves, which leads to the same objection that OP pointed out to N=2, but for all N. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 17:28 | comment | added | jez | Yep, combinations of people can gang up on individuals. This could be ameliorated by making people anonymous (everyone meets in the ante-room, puts on their identical cult robes and masks, mills around a bit, then files through to the voting room). But then the anonymization mechanism is a TTP (which we can’t actually, strictly, avoid—even face-down slips of paper are a TTP). | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 16:28 | comment | added | Kevin | @Sneftel - Yeah, this is a problem with a lot of the 'chaining' solutions here. If Bob is given any input from Alice, that's essentially not private - because anyone can ask Alice what she handed him. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 7:26 | comment | added | Sneftel | What about when Charlie asks Alice what bitstring she handed to Bob the second time? This solution only works if there's no collaboration between parties, which isn't a constraint you can readily assume. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 4:57 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 4:46 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 242 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2020 at 4:38 | history | answered | jez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |