Paul Leyland wrote:
>
> > >We could let prime95 decide the next election <grin>.
> > >Give everybody a different prime number. Multiply the primes for
> > candidate A together, likewise for B.
> >
> > And like in this election, unless we can completely factor
> > the results,
> > we wouldn't know who won, either.
> >
> > :)
>
> I note the smiley, but I also assume that we know the original primes as
> well, as it's built into the double voting detection mechanism. If after
> dividing through all allocated primes the residue is > 1, we can conclude
> that at least one voter registered a protest by spoiling their ballot paper.
> Note that we also know who did *not* vote, if their prime doesn't appear in
> either product.
>
> A major problem with this protocol as I see it is that a third party can
> steal your vote by stealing your prime and using it first.
These problems could be solved by storing the primes on a single,
secured machine and then sending them to voters, eg, on a floppy through
certified mail.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using primes with, say, 150 decimal
digits generated from strong random numbers, we'd be quite safe.
The problem is for the government to factor the huge composite number
for each candidate afterwards. Can someone give me a rough estimate of
how long it would take a good supercomputer to check an arbitrary
100,000,000 digit number for several factors that are each a known 150
digit arbitrary prime?
Nathan
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
