[acdha]

> As in vote selling and coerced checking? probably can't, but then again, neither can centralized internet voting solutions.

This is one of the reasons why we don't have internet voting: it's inferior to the status quo in critical areas. “blockchain” is not magic pixie dust which fixes that problem and the people backing it don't seem to have studied the problem very deeply, as evidenced by your repeated assertions that “the voting would using a cryptographic system to ensure confidentiality” before finally admitting that nobody has proposed a system resistant to a key class of attacks.

> Even in normal voting, you can take a photo of the ballot to then prove who you voted for and get paid for it (and/or not get beaten).

The difference is that it's harder to do that – or even illegal, see http://bigstory.ap.org/article/709338e5557a49e7ad5c68109ffec... – and it's not foolproof since you could take a picture of a ballot but void it and cast a different one, both of which make widespread coercion or selling unreliable.

> As I said in the original comment, I don't think it will solve problems that have always been with us

Simply asserting that it's always been with us doesn't change the fact that this is a problem which the current status quo was actively designed to prevent and that the proposed system makes that problem far worse.

[heliumcraft]

The whole discussion was NOT about the status quo traditional voting vs blockchain, It was about Internet voting in regards to centralized solutions vs decentralized/blockchain solutions. They both share SOME similar problems, but the blockchain is a improvement in many regards albeit not a perfect one. There is still a lot of open problems in regards to this. For the moment though, in person voting it's still better.

The day might come though that internet voting will be widespread. When that day comes I rather have a decentralized solution solution than a centralized one that can be easily manipulated.