Better than losing the key and finding a "workaround" I guess.

Some things just work, like paper ballots. No reason to re-invent the wheel or to "verschlimmbessern" what works.

We vote a lot in Switzerland on a lot of issues but we do so on paper ballots which we can either drop directly in the box or send in the post. When there is a close vote the maximum wait for a result is usually around 4-5 hours so that isn't really an issue either. Counting is a highly distributed effort and IMO that also reduces the risk for large scale fraud.

Why does the IACR use the term "cryptology" rather than "cryptography"?

Previously: A cryptography research body held an election and they can't decrypt the results https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46020596

This headline is incorrect, elections were rescheduled, not canceled.

It sounds like "3 out of 3" is too risky, as you're basically tripling the risk of losing a key (but you're reducing the risk of compromise). Something like "3 out of 4" would have been a better balance, in my opinion, but I think there were technical issues in requiring such a quorum (I think I read that the encryption scheme didn't support it, but don't quote me).

I guess it's my turn to post it -- https://m.xkcd.com/2030/

Like fine wine

Previously:

A cryptography research body held an election and they can't decrypt the results - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46020596 - Nov 2025 (38 comments)