"Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes:
> In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
> have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
> simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots, and also be
> end-to-end publicly verifiable meaning transparent verific
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 11:31:22AM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
> have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
> simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots, and also be
> end-to-end publicly v
* Harlan Lieberman-Berg [2022-03-05 16:13]:
I hereby amend this proposal, unless any of the seconding Developers
(CCed) objects. The diff follows:
commit 7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1
Author: Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Date: Sat Mar 5 16:01:26 2022 -0500
Change language as suggest
Hi Harlan,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think your reasoning is sound and
appreciate you elaborating on it.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:28:57PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> I still hope that this option receives enough seconds to go on the
> ballot as an intermediary position betw
Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:13:48PM -0500]:
> (...)
> > If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the
> > discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also: Amend
> > A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via an
> > amend
In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots, and also be
end-to-end publicly verifiable meaning transparent verification of the
final tally, with voters abl
6 matches
Mail list logo
