After this week’s highly-fraught midterm elections, some commentators believe that blockchain is more useless than ever for voting.
After Tuesday’s crucial midterm elections, commentators — many of them academics and researchers — reinforced the importance of traditional voting methods, offering a strong critique blockchain.
NBC’s Jasmin Boyce reported on a number of voices that emerged in response to social media debate regarding the merits of blockchain in polling places. Princeton professor Arvind Narayanan singled out the “[…] Avacado” argument in the tweet below:
Here’s the deal, blockchain boosters. We know you’re desperately pushing “X on the blockchain” ideas. If you’re trying to convince Walmart it needs blockchains to track avocados or whatever, be our guest. But if you’re messing with critical infrastructure, you’ve crossed a line.
— Arvind Narayanan (@random_walker) November 7, 2018
Despite stern warnings about crossing the proverbial ‘line,’ the dialogue continued. Dr. Angela Walch, a law professor at St. Mary’s University in San Antonia Texas, was quick to respond on social media.
Walch holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School, on top of a law B.A. from the same institution. Walch is noted for her intensive research and publications regarding blockchain tech. Her academic page reads:
Walch was nominated for “Blockchain Person of the Year” for 2016 by Crypto Coins News for her work on the governance of blockchain technologies and her influential article in American Banker arguing that the coders and miners of public blockchains should be treated as fiduciaries.
This is ridiculous. Please stop pumping #blockchain tech for critically important use cases like voting in public elections when all actual voting experts disagree. Misleading policy makers and the public on this is irresponsible.