I call complete, LARP BS on that. I heard it thrown out there too, but I can't remember who said it. Not only does that claim make zero sense technically, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what blockchain is or how it works and why.
To explain:
Historically, searching and retrieving information was done via a database. Databases are highly efficient at doing this task, but are generally centralized and therefore under control of a single entity. That leads to perceived weaknesses, like that records could be altered and integrity compromised because of the single source of control, or a single point of failure could cause that database to be unavailable. So, blockchain was invented to address these concerns.
Blockchain is an entirely electronic, decentralized, and cryptographically secured datastore that provides record integrity (proof the record hasn't been changed) and non-repudiation (knowing who changed it and when). The decentralized nature of BC grants 24x7x365 availability, and there is no single point of failure. Confidentiality (visibility of the record's data) is optional and dependent on the implementation. Furthermore, each block (record) is cryptographically signed and made immutable- any changes to the record's data must be done in a new block and linked to the original block. That gives a complete chain of custody and audit trail throughout the life of the block, and any illicit changes to a block's data can be reconstructed by its descendants.
Following me so far?
Watermarks are physical 'stamps' that can be used to track and trace a physical object. They are regarded as immutable in their own right, so no need to provide integrity via an external method. Ballots in this case are physical- not electronic. There is no linkage to the data on the ballot to the record used to track serialized watermarks. There is also no accounting for the physical delivery of that piece of paper beyond the first destination after the watermark was recorded.
The only way this blockchain watermark crap becomes useful is if Dominion, in reality, are the good guys; and Eric Coooooomer is a white hat.
Those electronic voting machines would have had to been rebuilt to scan ballots with both UV light to pick up the serialized watermark, record the data, and enter it into the non-public blockchain supposedly created for this.
I give the chances of that a zero point zero, Mister Blutarsky.
Did CISA create a blockchain to record watermarked serials? Maybe.But would make zero sense.
Does it help the audit or to prove vote counts? No, it can't.
Does it prove the contents of a watermarked ballot is false? Nope.
Can it track changes to the data on a ballot? Uh-uh. Nyet.
Can it figure out if a ballot was fraudulently created? Not really, unless every ballot were watermarked. But that's just a database search to see if the serial exists and it's uniquely counted- a problem solved efficiently with a database, not a blockchain.
I call complete, LARP BS on that. I heard it thrown out there too, but I can't remember who said it. Not only does that claim make zero sense technically, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what blockchain is or how it works and why.
To explain:
Historically, searching and retrieving information was done via a database. Databases are highly efficient at doing this task, but are generally centralized and therefore under control of a single entity. That leads to perceived weaknesses, like that records could be altered and integrity compromised because of the single source of control, or a single point of failure could cause that database to be unavailable. So, blockchain was invented to address these concerns.
Blockchain is an entirely electronic, decentralized, and cryptographically secured datastore that provides record integrity (proof the record hasn't been changed) and non-repudiation (knowing who changed it and when). The decentralized nature of BC grants 24x7x365 availability, and there is no single point of failure. Confidentiality (visibility of the record's data) is optional and dependent on the implementation. Furthermore, each block (record) is cryptographically signed and made immutable- any changes to the record's data must be done in a new block and linked to the original block. That gives a complete chain of custody and audit trail throughout the life of the block, and any illicit changes to a block's data can be reconstructed by its descendants.
Following me so far?
Watermarks are physical 'stamps' that can be used to track and trace a physical object. They are regarded as immutable in their own right, so no need to provide integrity via an external method. Ballots in this case are physical- not electronic. There is no linkage to the data on the ballot to the record used to track serialized watermarks. There is also no accounting for the physical delivery of that piece of paper beyond the first destination after the watermark was recorded.
The only way this blockchain watermark crap becomes useful is if Dominion, in reality, are the good guys; and Eric Coooooomer is a white hat. Those electronic voting machines would have had to been rebuilt to scan ballots with both UV light to pick up the serialized watermark, record the data, and enter it into the non-public blockchain supposedly created for this.
I give the chances of that a zero point zero, Mister Blutarsky.
Did CISA create a blockchain to record watermarked serials? Maybe. But would make zero sense.
Does it help the audit or to prove vote counts? No, it can't.
Does it prove the contents of a watermarked ballot is false? Nope.
Can it track changes to the data on a ballot? Uh-uh. Nyet.
Can it figure out if a ballot was fraudulently created? Not really, unless every ballot were watermarked. But that's just a database search to see if the serial exists and it's uniquely counted- a problem solved efficiently with a database, not a blockchain.