Sierra Leone government denies the role of blockchain in its recent election

https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/sierra-leone-government-denies-the-role-of-blockchain-in-its-recent-election/

by portofcall • 8 years ago

161 89 8 years ago

dwighttk4• 8 years ago

The original story wasn't very clear how blockchain was involved. It seems very likely now with the NEC denying the claims that it was a bunch of hype.

“Agora’s results for the two districts they tallied differed considerably from the official results, according to an analysis of the two sets of statistics carried out by RFI,”
Was Agora simply attempting a PR stunt in support of its upcoming token sale.

almost certainly

dwighttk4• 8 years ago

for what it is worth, the indigenous Sierra Leone News site I follow has 0 references to "blockchain" and only one to "agora" (which doesn't seem to actually contain "agora")

http://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/?s=blockchain

http://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/?s=agora

IncRnd2• 8 years ago

Not the OP.

That's good information you posted. Thank you!

rory096• 8 years ago

(which doesn't seem to actually contain "agora")

I do believe that's a hit on "So Pythagoras was wrong?"

GenericsMotors2• 8 years ago

The original story wasn't very clear how blockchain was involved.

Didn't stop the ridiculously titled "Sierra Leone just ran the first blockchain-based election"[1] from being shared and strongly upvoted here on HN.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16622245

dwighttk4• 8 years ago

I voted it up. I read the article because I'm interested in Sierra Leone and was interested in keeping an eye on developments (like how exactly blockchain was involved)...

I should probably raise my standards for upvoting.

danso3• 8 years ago

You're linking to this thread; I think you mean to link to this one, which has 500+ upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210

rdiddly• 8 years ago

Well I guess I need to update my opinion on that story from "Cool application of blockchains!" to "Would've been a cool application of blockchains!"

xorcist• 8 years ago

Why check your sources when you can publish both the outrageous article and then a retraction as well? Instant click doubling!

mozumder• 8 years ago

Good, because blockchain for elections is a TERRIBLE idea.

A large state can hack election results just by having millions of computers perform blockchain proof-of-work on false election data.

popol12• 8 years ago

That's not true at all. The worst the state can do is to deny votes to be written in the blockchain by mining empty blocks. But no matter how much computing power it has, the state can't write false votes, thanks to public key cryptography. If transactions where cheaper, voting on a public blockchain like Bitcoin would be a great thing. That's not the case today, but I'm pretty sure it will be in the coming years.

KenanSulayman• 8 years ago

That’s not correct. The worst that can happen is falsifying votes before they’re written to the blockchain. And there’s nobody who will check the „blockchain“ for his vote, because people want to vote and get over with it.

IncRnd2• 8 years ago

There are many ways to subvert blockchains, especially being the authority in charge of data entry, without breaking crypto.

rebuilder• 8 years ago

This sounds like an argument against rolling your own blockchain instead of using an existing, highly secure one. Not that I'm convinced blockchains are the proper tool for the job.

BTW, is it too late to stop using the word "blockchain" like it's something that can be bottled up and sold? I believe an article is required.

malikNF• 8 years ago

These guys, https://www.democracy.earth/ changed my view on using the blockchain for voting.

I think its a really cool project, may be they might help you change your mind too.

s73v3r_• 8 years ago

Why would a state running an election let just anyone "mine" their blockchain?

Sangermaine• 8 years ago

Hard to believe unverified hype or outright deception is involved in something relating to blockchain technology.

mattigames• 8 years ago

I live in a third world country (Colombia) and the scammy hype is even here, people at cafes telling each other to "invest" in BTC and the other crypto currencies, usually through a middlemen (the ones doing the convincing, so they take a commission one way or another); usually involving people with not much money to begin with, just hungry for an opportunity to make some, willing to take bank credits or other forms of debt in order to "invest". It's all so lame.

jacques_chester9• 8 years ago

Luckily, I have the answer: a blockchain which records overhyped blockchains. This technology will make it possible to create an immutable, universal record that will exclude all falsehood.

ICO imminent. Act now and receive a 20% bonus on your next overpromise.

specialist• 8 years ago

I retract my prior comment about giving Agora the benefit of the doubt.

"...The Agora people appear smart, earnest. So maybe there's something here." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16599728

Voting systems are like catnip for both conspiracy theorists and charlatan's. It's nutty making. Sometimes I wonder which one I am.

On the positive side, the Sierra Leone govt's refutation saves me the effort of debunking yet another hairball scheme.

beat3• 8 years ago

I have yet to see how blockchain is supposed to solve problems with elections that can't be solved with good process. And if process isn't fixed, I don't see how blockchain alone will get around the process shortcomings.

Elections are no different than any other info security problem. Multiple checks at multiple locations in the process. Blockchain is not magic pixie dust that makes info security issues go away.

bdamm• 8 years ago

It's almost like people are thinking of blockchain as a global immutable append-only log with source attribution.

Then the main question is, is what you're willing to pay to append a record more than what the operators (miners) are willing to accept to append a record? In the case of elections, I don't know a lot of governments that would be willing to pay to do what they do for free today.

hudon6• 8 years ago

Not only that, but the blockchain is not even immutable... Forks happen all the time and the developers end up arbitrarily choosing which fork is the real blockchain. Anyone that was using the other fork in the meantime sees their chain mutate (gets wiped out, essentially) or be given a different name.

So basically even IF the blockchain was not costly, the nation would need to control the developers to control the blockchain in the case of consensus failure (fork) to make sure no one messes with the election results.

beat3• 8 years ago

It's not just that... it's unabashed technofetishism, using a very pretty Golden Hammer to solve problems that don't necessarily exist.

darawk16• 8 years ago

Then the main question is, is what you're willing to pay to append a record more than what the operators (miners) are willing to accept to append a record? In the case of elections, I don't know a lot of governments that would be willing to pay to do what they do for free today.

If a government is holding fair elections, they should be willing to spend money on the opportunity to prove that they are fair. That being said, you don't actually need mining in an election-based blockchain. Mining/PoW exist to solve the 'double spend' problem - but that's just a race condition. There's no need to worry about race conditions in elections. The global consensus can be computed slowly. The important property that you want is that each individual voter be able to mathematically verify that their own personal vote was counted towards the total, and counted correctly. Blockchains do offer that capability.

darawk16• 8 years ago

I have yet to see how blockchain is supposed to solve problems with elections that can't be solved with good process. And if process isn't fixed, I don't see how blockchain alone will get around the process shortcomings.

Blockchains provide a verifiably immutable log. This is the exact primitive you want for elections - tamper-proof logging. It is genuinely a good technological solution to the problems of election legitimacy and validation. That isn't a defense of this article, or of any of the current blockchain/election projects, but in principle, the idea makes sense.

spydum• 8 years ago

I'd say a significant amount of our problems are not transaction log failures - they are authentication/identity failures. The catch is that blockchain technologies force you to solve both (you cant take part in a transaction without an identity, can you?). Plenty of people who've lost wallets will concede this is still hard (what happens when you lose your government issued private-key, for example?).

portofcall• 8 years ago

You’ve commented a lot on this, so I feel I have to ask, do you have a stake in cryptocurrency, or is this purely your sincere enthusiasm for the tech? After all, cryptographically secure elections with verifiablity don’t require blockchain tech in the slightest.

skywhopper• 8 years ago

That’s honestly the smallest part of election validation. How do you know everything was recorded to the log correctly or at all? In other words, the actual “election” part where you verify voters and collect results, which has nothing to do with blockchain. But even if that is all done right, how is the blockchain itself being run? Blockchain data is only as trustworthy as the systems doing the verification. A centralized blockchain is no more trustworthy than a centralized database of any kind. And a distributed blockchain has its own attack vectors. Rubbing blockchain on it is not a security solution.

jacques_chester9• 8 years ago

This is the exact primitive you want for elections - tamper-proof logging

It is exact opposite of what is wanted.

arthur_pryor5• 8 years ago

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.

CryptoPunk• 8 years ago

Quite a different story from what the Agora team were telling:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/83v7x9/these_resul...

danso3• 8 years ago

Here's a more relevant response, in which they comment on someone's submission of this article that disputes the use of blockchain in Sierra Leone:

http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20180319-sierra-leones-electoral-com...

https://np.reddit.com/r/agora/comments/85k6cx/sierra_leones_...

Agora makes zero attempt to rebut the claims with evidence, and instead, attack the source:

Through research we have found that username "Tamba Lamin", who is the main source of this article, is from a competing service. You can do your own research into his position by Googling the username and "election". We do our part to not incite witch-hunts or dox users so please do not either but he used his real name on our channels and we have no other way to reference it.

The article by Tamba Lamin is just one of more than a dozen articles listed in the cited post that argue against Agora. This is not a great response from the Agora team (posted below for posterity):

Hi /u/custom1made, we welcome both positive and negative feedback on our company so we can continue to learn, earn trust, and grow.

Our continued success will attract many unsavory characters that will attack us - we must remain professional, honest, and composed - and hope to foster a community that agrees to that mantra.

We are very much hoping you will do your part in helping us stay strong so we can focus on our mission to bring transparent Democracy to the world.

Through research we have found that username "Tamba Lamin", who is the main source of this article, is from a competing service. You can do your own research into his position by Googling the username and "election". We do our part to not incite witch-hunts or dox users so please do not either but he used his real name on our channels and we have no other way to reference it.

Although his motives may have been questionable, he brought up important topics. We had an internal meeting about our stance on sensational subject titles, filters in place, and how we will handle incorrect information from third-party news organizations. Our intent is to set and keep the record straight.

As stated in our pinned posts and in all of our Reddit posts, we do not verify the accuracy of third-party news reports. Thank you.

notahacker• 8 years ago

Companies which double down on lying PR by personally attacking people correcting it (not even accurately apparently, given no evidence to suggest Tamba Lamin has any connection with French media reporting quotes from election officials) should not be anywhere near election counting.

danso3• 8 years ago

If it's the case that Sierra Leone did not use blockchain for any part of its election, I think TechCrunch needs to own up to its reporting, which seems very thinly sourced:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/14/sierra-leone-just-ran-the-...

In fact, it seems completely sourced to "Leonardo Gammar of Agora", "Agora" being a company that is trying to sell its "blockchain-based digital voting solution" [0] and thus has every incentive to hype the usage of their product. The TC reporter apparently made no attempt to contact anyone who actually works in Sierra Leone's government/elections, or anyone who actually lives there.

[0] https://agora.vote/#about

edit: looks like the reporter has just decided to reach out to authorities:

https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975841632661786624

https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975814093994151938

Quartz also wrote about Sierra Leone's alleged use of blockchain, and like TC, solely sources it to Agora: https://qz.com/1227050/sierra-leone-elections-powered-by-blo...

It does link to this page though, from Agora:

https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/

It is possible that Agora was accredited as an independent observer of results. But it's problematic that they use their Sierra Leone results page to advertise their services, which don't seem to have been used as described:

Agora is a Swiss foundation providing decentralized digital voting systems based on the blockchain technology. Agora’s solution will enable secure and remote voting from digital devices, as well as allow each voter to verify his or her untampered vote in the final count.

When you go to Agora's "results" page, all you get is an aggregated tally of votes. I don't see a ledger of any kind:

https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/results

apo• 8 years ago

Beware of Blockchain stories with unsubstantiated facts. The original story had many red flags, not the least of which being the use of the future tense in a quote by Gammar.

“Anonymized votes/ballots are being recorded on Agora’s blockchain, which will be publicly available for any interested party to review, count and validate,” said Gammar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210

The space is littered with claims like this that turn out to be nonsense. Don't trust, verify.

yongjik2• 8 years ago

Well, good, because I couldn't fathom why anyone would want to run an election using blockchain.

Paper ballots with automated scanners is a solved problem. It works, it's cheap, and it's virtually tamper-proof. (Tampering with the result will require physical access by many people: if you allow that possibility you're basically conceding that you cannot trust the government to run the election properly, and using any technology won't save you.)

In other words, paper ballots is a boring, unsexy technology whose only benefit is that it works. No wonder people aren't excited.

hmcdona14• 8 years ago

What? I agree it works, but it's pretty insecure. Paper ballots can just be swapped out for other paper ballots. With a public blockchain (or something like it) you could always look up your vote and by nature it cannot be changed. The vote count could be tallied instantly as well and recounts are unnecessary.

Blockchains can't ensure no false votes are cast for deceased or unwilling participants, but it honestly would be better than paper in many ways. I am not advocating people use some third party token to do this. That I believe would be unnecessary. Am I missing something though? I don't understand the overwhelming hatred any blockchain related tech gets on HN. This is one area where I think it could provide real value.

jacques_chester9• 8 years ago

With a public blockchain (or something like it) you could always look up your vote and by nature it cannot be changed. ... Am I missing something though?

Ballot secrecy. Without it you get vote-buying and voter coercion. If you want to see what that looks like, ask your legislators about which lobbyists they met last week.

yongjik2• 8 years ago

With a public blockchain (or something like it) you could always look up your vote and by nature it cannot be changed.

So all you have to do is to set up a fake website advertising "Look up if your vote is counted as it should be", let people type in their credentials, and you now know exactly how millions of people have voted.

Paper ballots work because it's dead simple. Your ballot goes into a box, multiple eyeballs from multiple parties continuously watch the box, and then the box is opened and everything in it is counted, with no way to connect each ballot to individual voters. That you cannot "look up your vote" later is not a bug: it's a feature.

jacques_chester9• 8 years ago

Paper ballots can just be swapped out for other paper ballots.

I would offer you $10,000 to prove that you can do this in an Australian election. To actually, your own self, swap one ballot for another in a way that I can verify, during an election.

But it's a crime for you to do it and a crime for me to ask you to do it.

And, here's my actual point: you would be caught doing it.

howlingfantods• 8 years ago

I think one of the points OP was trying to make is if you have the capability to swap out enough paper ballots to materially affect an election, you would also have the ability to fake or distort a blockchain implementation...

mantas• 8 years ago

There are multiple people watching ballot boxes during the election. Best part - anyone can signup to watch and later count them. It's dead-simple job and any nut can easily do it. On top of that, all major parties have their own people watching each other. You'd need massive operation to mess up even single voting outpost.

Meanwhile with e-voting we'd loose transparency. Non-tech people would be completely out of the loop. Many tech people would have hard time inspecting hardware and source code too. Let alone there's no bullet proof way to ensure code on the machines and machines themselves weren't tampered.

E-voting is a wet dream of any conspiracy theorist...

microtherion• 8 years ago

Sierra Leone missed an opportunity here to embrace the hype and declare itself "The Crypto Jungle".

shpx• 8 years ago

https://youtu.be/ZDnShu5V99s?t=22m46s is a good lecture about the cryptography of electronic voting.

Sierra Leone government denies the role of blockchain in its recent election

Related Stories