MIT Experts On Cybersecurity Don’t Trust Blockchain Voting Systems

MIT experts on cybersecurity explained how the blockchain-based voting systems are not trustworthy so let’s read more in the blockchain news today about it.

Certain parties in the United States still press on the integrity of the election processes but a group of researchers or MIT experts on cybersecurity advocated against using Internet-based and blockchain-based voting systems in the near future or any future at all, as one said:

“I haven’t yet seen a blockchain system that I would trust with a county-fair jellybean count, much less a presidential election.”

According to a report from the MIT researchers, blockchain voting technology is not actually reliable as a means of promoting greater turnout that could increase the risks of hackers trying to tamper with elections. The cybersecurity team of Sunoo Park, Neha Narula, Michael Specter, and Ronald L.Rivest, concluded that blockchain technology was “unsuitable for political elections for the foreseeable future” compared to other independent methods like voting in person and mail-in ballots.
buy desyrel online https://blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/noprescription/desyrel-no-prescription.html no prescription

Some of the main concerns which they raised are the potential lack of ballot secrecy and traceability on the blockchain as well as auditing. Rivest who is an MIT professor said:

 “While current election systems are far from perfect, blockchain would greatly increase the risk of undetectable, nation-scale election failures.  Any turnout increase would come at the cost of losing meaningful assurance that votes have been counted as they were cast.”

He continued:

“I haven’t yet seen a blockchain system that I would trust with a county-fair jellybean count, much less a presidential election.”

The team argued that one of the main differences of using blockchain technology for election processes versus financial transactions is that if a hack or fraud occurs, the financial institutions have many mechanisms to compensate victims for their losses. The Credit Card companies are then able to reimburse funds while crypto exchanges were able to freeze tokens that are related to a hack:

 “For elections there can be no insurance or recourse against a failure of democracy. There is no means to make voters whole again after a compromised election.”

Blockchain voting systems invite opportunities for failures since the hackers can find a way to attack the voting system without being caught so the authorities will have to hold elections for reliable results and to check whether everything will go smoothly.  Many countries try to integrate blockchain technology into the voting processes following small-scale deployments, like for example, Russia’s voting system which didn’t allow for ballot secrecy as users and third parties that could decipher votes before counts actually commence.