cknoll / git-voting

Verifiable Anonymous Voting System Based on Git, Email, GPG and Tor (Proposal)

About cknoll

• 🔭 I’m currently working on:
  • so called explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)
  • Knowledge representation and applications of it
  • (especially in the domains (partly overlapping) of engineering and sustainability)
• 👯 I’m looking to collaborate on: Semantic-related Python projects, interesting domain ontologies, and – of course – all of my (forked) repos.
• 🤔 I’m looking for help with: Understanding (and improving) some intricate details of ontology engineering and knowledge representation
• 💬 Ask me about:
  • Python (I co-authored a book on Python for engineering)
  • eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Knowledge Representation (RDF, OWL, SPARQL)
  • Control Theory
• 📫 How to reach me: via email (see also commit messages)
• ⚡ Fun fact: I believe there is a non-empty intersection of realistic and optimistic predictions of future developments.

git-voting's Issues

clearify the randomness of $RANDOMNAME

@horazont wrote in a comment to the original gist:

Is $RANDOMNAME always the same name for a given vote? If so, the association between votes/$RANDOMNAME and the signed confirmations/$RANDOMNAME breaks the anonymity completely. That should be clarified in the text.

Be more specific in the "claims"-section

Feedback from a matrix channel:

[Section] "what can be achieved" parts (trust, anonymity, etc.) need to be a bit more focused and explained. Most systems will not be able to fulfill all requirements (availability?), so it's likely you'll need to make some concessions.

Separate Assumptions and Requirements

The Assumptions are the environment in which the system operates. Example: "$N < 100"

The Requirements are the things the system must enforce/provide. Example: "No user shall vote more than once."

By grouping both, you make it sound as if "No user shall vote more than once." is an Assumption and is not a property (supposed to be) protected by the scheme.

You may even go further and split Assumptions in Environmental Assumptions and Entities, where Entities describes the participants of the system (S1-S3, the Users) and their properties (Keys etc.).

Nice to have

Feedback from a matrix channel:

From my point of view, things that would be nice to have are:

• scripts/things that "do everything": like ./vote
• a mathematical proof (tamarin?) that the defined protocol exhibits the claimed properties

What could also be interesting:

• blind signatures
  • however this goes beyond "usual" encrypting and signing, and thus might raise the understandability hurdle even higher.