Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

SmartphoneDemocracy: Privacy-Preserving E-Voting on Decentralized Infrastructure using Novel European Identity

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SmartphoneDemocracy claims that anonymous, verifiable voting can happen on ordinary smartphones using EUDI credentials, zero-knowledge proofs, and a peer-to-peer ledger.

desk verdict A clear, earnest e-voting protocol proposal that assembles EUDI, BBS, Paillier, Groth16, and TrustChain into a smartphone-centric design; the headline replay attack doesn't survive a close reading, but the paper's informal security argument and unbound registration proof need real work before the central claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09453 v1 pith:BQXF2V7K submitted 2025-07-13 cs.CR cs.DC

Micha{l} Jóźwik , Johan Pouwelse This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.DC
keywords e-votingblockchainzero-knowledgeproofsprivacyEUDIWallethomomorphicencryptionSybilresistanceuniversalverifiability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SmartphoneDemocracy tries to show that a national-scale election can be run without a central authority, using only the smartphones of the participants. It combines the EUDI Wallet as a Sybil-resistant identity source, zero-knowledge proofs to break the link between identity and ballot, and a peer-to-peer blockchain as an open bulletin board. The paper's central claim is that this combination gives anonymous registration, secret ballots, one vote per eligible citizen, and a tally anyone can audit, at a computational cost a phone can bear. If that is right, elections could be held on infrastructure the voters themselves operate, with legitimacy derived from public verification rather than from trust in an election commission.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of anonymous identifiers derived from one hidden secret: the commitment $cm = \mathrm{Commit}(secret\_id)$, which appears in the registration transaction, and the vote nullifier $nf_{\mathrm{vote}} = H(secret\_id \parallel id_E)$, which appears in the vote transaction. Registration is mediated by a BBS signature whose selective-disclosure proof lets the voter show they hold a valid credential without revealing the secret; the Groth16 proof in the vote transaction ties the ciphertext to a registered commitment and to a freshly derived nullifier. Peers enforce one vote per registration by maintaining a public spent-nullifier list, and tallying uses a threshold Paillier scheme so that only the sum, never individual ballots, is decrypted.

What would settle it

After one successful off-chain registration, submit two registration transactions that reuse the same BBS selective-disclosure proof but post different commitments; if honest peers accept both and both can be followed by accepted votes, the on-chain one-vote-per-registration claim is falsified, because the transaction format binds neither the commitment to the proof nor the proof to a single use.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The protocol separates identity checking from ballot casting. A voter presents an EUDI eligibility credential to a Verifier, which issues a BBS signature over a fresh hidden secret; the voter then posts a registration transaction containing only a commitment to that secret and a selective-disclosure proof. To vote, the voter posts a homomorphically encrypted choice, a nullifier derived from the same secret, and a Groth16 zero-knowledge proof that links the commitment, nullifier, and ciphertext. Network peers verify the proof and check that the nullifier has not already been spent, which the paper argues cryptographically guarantees one valid vote per valid registration; tallying is a public homomorphic sum followed by threshold decryption with zero-knowledge proofs on every share. The result is a protocol whose bulletin board and tally are fully public while the voter's identity and choice remain separate.

Load-bearing premise

The one-person-one-vote guarantee rests on the assumption that each registration credential is used exactly once and that the anonymous identifier posted to the ledger is cryptographically tied to that credential; the public ledger has no independent way to enforce either condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A voter needs only a smartphone: BBS registration operations run in milliseconds and Groth16 vote-proof generation in under a second on a low-end single-board computer.
  • Anyone can audit the entire election by re-verifying every registration proof, vote proof, and decryption share on the public ledger and recomputing the homomorphic tally.
  • A one-million-voter election would put roughly 2.4 GB on the ledger (about 1.3 KB per registration and 1.1 KB per vote), which the paper argues is within reach of consumer peers.
  • A threshold number of key-share holders must cooperate to decrypt the result, so no single participant can decrypt individual ballots or alter the published sum without leaving detectable proof failures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit in the design but not developed is the gap between a decentralized bulletin board and decentralized enrollment: until registration uniqueness moves on-chain, the system's trust profile is closer to 'one trusted registrar plus a public ledger' than to 'no trusted parties.'
  • A natural testable extension is to add a registration nullifier to the registration transaction, so the same credential cannot seed multiple anonymous commitments; without such a binding, the on-chain record cannot by itself enforce one vote per person.
  • The same composition — a government-issued credential, a blind signature, and a nullifier — could be reused for anonymous one-response-per-person authorization in petitions, surveys, or participatory budgeting.
  • Because the paper's measurements are micro-benchmarks of individual cryptographic operations, the large-scale feasibility conclusion should be read as an upper-bound check rather than a load-tested deployment result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. SmartphoneDemocracy proposes a decentralized e-voting protocol on the TrustChain P2P ledger, combining EUDI Wallet-issued verifiable credentials, BBS selective-disclosure proofs for registration, Groth16 zk-SNARKs for vote validity, threshold Paillier homomorphic encryption for tallying, and public nullifiers for double-voting prevention. The paper provides a four-phase protocol (setup, registration, voting, tallying), a security analysis against a stated adversary, a qualitative risk table, and performance estimates backed by an Android prototype and microbenchmarks. The central claims are that the protocol provides voter privacy, Sybil resistance, universal verifiability, and practical feasibility for large-scale elections, all without a central coordinator.

Significance. If the protocol were sound, the synthesis of EUDI Wallet identity with BBS selective disclosure and Groth16 proofs on a P2P ledger would be a timely contribution to decentralized e-voting, and the estimated transaction sizes (~1.3 KB registration, ~1.1 KB vote) and sub-second proof generation would be attractive for smartphone deployments. The paper is also transparent about its limitations, explicitly acknowledging the trusted Verifier and the incomplete prototype. However, the central one-person-one-vote guarantee is invalidated by a missing binding between the registration proof and the commitment, the security analysis is assertional rather than formal, and the performance evaluation is component-level only. These issues leave the main contributions unsubstantiated as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-C, VI-A] The registration transaction Tx_reg = (cm, proof_reg) does not bind the BBS selective-disclosure proof to the commitment cm. Section V-C step 7 validates proof_reg only against the Verifier's public key and the public election_id; it does not check that cm commits to the hidden secret_id in the signed credential. A voter with a single legitimate BBS credential can therefore replay the same proof_reg with arbitrarily many fresh commitments cm_i, each of which is accepted into LCommit. For each cm_i, the voter can choose a fresh secret_id_i and produce a valid voting proof πvote and a distinct nullifier nfvote_i = H(secret_id_i || idE), so the on-chain nullifier check in Section V-D step 6 does not prevent multiple votes. The off-chain Verifier registry (Section V-C step 2) limits the number of issued BBS credentials per PID, but it does not limit how many commitments one credential can authorize. Consequently, the claim in Section VI-A that the protocol 'cryptographically guarantees' exactly one vote per valid registration is false, and assumption A2 is violated.
  2. [VI, Table V] The security analysis is informal: properties such as ballot secrecy (Section VI-C), anonymity and unlinkability (Section VI-B), and universal verifiability (Section VI-E) are argued narratively without formal definitions, adversarial games, or proofs. The risk table in Table V lists 'formal analysis of the ZKP vote circuit' as a mitigation for rows 2c and 4d, but no such formal analysis appears anywhere in the paper. Because the paper advertises 'a security analysis against a defined threat model' as a contribution, the absence of a formal framework leaves the security claims unestablished and the threat model incomplete.
  3. [V-G, VII-A, VII-B] The performance evaluation consists of microbenchmarks of individual cryptographic operations on a Raspberry Pi and an emulator. The paper itself admits in Section V-G that the homomorphic tallying and ZKP verification were not fully integrated and the TrustChain layer was only partially tested. The statement in Section VII-A that the protocol is 'computationally and network-wise feasible for deployment in real-world, large-scale elections' is therefore an extrapolation from component-level timings and does not account for end-to-end behavior, concurrent load, network propagation, or storage constraints. The evaluation supports only component-level feasibility, not the system-level claim.
  4. [I, IV-A(b), IV-D, IX-A] The abstract claims the system operates 'without a central coordinator,' but the registration phase relies on a single trusted Verifier that maintains a private nullifier registry (Section V-C step 2). This Verifier is a central server and its malicious compromise is not included in the threat model of Section IV-D. The authors acknowledge this centralization point in Section IX-A, but the claim in the abstract is still overstated and should be qualified whenever 'decentralized' is used for the overall system.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text repeatedly renders 'Voters' and 'Voter App' with an extra space (e.g., 'V oters:', 'V oter App'). This typographical artifact should be corrected throughout the manuscript.
  2. [V-D step 4] The relation proven by πvote is described only informally. The public inputs and the witness (including the Merkle path, the commitment randomness, and the exact encryption relation) should be specified to make the protocol reproducible and to enable a formal soundness analysis.
  3. [Table III] The Config row lists a size per transaction of '∼5 − 10KB' but a total of '∼10 KB (negligible)', which is inconsistent. Clarify whether the configuration is one transaction or several, and align the per-transaction and total sizes.
  4. [Appendix A] Appendix A is titled 'Security Analysis' but contains only a qualitative risk table. Since the paper does not provide a formal security analysis, the appendix should be renamed 'Risk Assessment' or the actual formal analysis should be supplied.
  5. [V-C step 1] The OpenID4VP protocol is mentioned without expanding the acronym or providing a citation. Add the full name and a reference to the relevant specification.
  6. [References [45]] The bibliography entry [45] lists 'D. L. A. contributors' as the author. This should be replaced with the actual authoring organization (e.g., Dock Network) or a proper institutional citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10
full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in any of the enumerated senses. The registration and voting claims are constructive: the paper specifies Tx_reg = (cm, proof_reg) and Tx_vote = (idE, c, nf_vote, pi_vote), defines the nullifier nf_vote = H(secret_id||idE), and checks uniqueness against L_VoteNull; the claimed one-vote-per-registration property is a consequence the protocol is intended to enforce, not an input reused as an output. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the performance section is a size estimate plus microbenchmarks of external libraries, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that end-to-end load behavior is not assessed. The only self-citation is TrustChain [23], by a co-author, used as a bulletin-board substrate; that system is externally published, and its properties are not invoked as a substitute for the e-voting security analysis. The known gap that proof_reg is not cryptographically bound to cm (Section V-C) undermines the Sybil-resistance claim in Section VI-A, but this is a design and security correctness issue, not circular reasoning: the claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The admitted centralization of the Verifier role (Section IX-A) is a stated limitation, not a circular step. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input prediction, or uniqueness-imported-by-self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric quantity is fitted to data; the estimates are derived from published cryptographic parameter sizes. The protocol introduces no new cryptographic entity. What it does depend on is a set of external trust assumptions (EUDI issuers, device security, TrustChain liveness, Verifier honesty) plus an implicit, unstated assumption that registration proofs cannot be replayed to create multiple commitments.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A1: Official Identity Providers issue non-forgeable, EUDI-compatible eligibility Verifiable Credentials only to legitimate voters, and the EUDI Wallet app is secure.
    Section IV-C Table II and Section V-C Step 1. The protocol outsources Sybil resistance to the EUDI ecosystem; if issuers issue credentials to ineligible users, uniqueness fails.
  • domain assumption A2: Each eligible voter completes registration exactly once per election.
    Section IV-C Table II. This is the guarantee the protocol is supposed to produce, but Section V-C does not cryptographically enforce it against replay of proof_reg.
  • domain assumption A5: Voters' smartphones can run the EUDI Wallet, the voting app, and ZKP generation within acceptable time, and the device OS/hardware is not compromised.
    Section IV-C Table II and Section IV-D. Performance and coercion-resistance claims depend on device integrity.
  • domain assumption A6: The TrustChain/IPv8 P2P network is operational with sufficient honest participation.
    Section IV-C Table II. The bulletin board and liveness guarantees are inherited from TrustChain, cited as [23] and authored by a co-author.
  • standard math A7: All cryptographic primitives (BBS, Paillier, Groth16, hashes, commitments) are computationally secure.
    Section IV-C Table II. Standard assumption for all crypto protocols; not independently verified here.
  • ad hoc to paper Trusted Verifier: a single Verifier maintains an internal nullifier registry and never colludes or is compromised.
    Section V-C and Section IX-A admit this centralization point; the paper calls it a temporary practical compromise, but anonymity and registration uniqueness depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SmartphoneDemocracy: Privacy-Preserving E-Voting on Decentralized Infrastructure using Novel European Identity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQXF2V7K

@misc{pith2026250709453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SmartphoneDemocracy: Privacy-Preserving E-Voting on Decentralized Infrastructure using Novel European Identity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQXF2V7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09453}
}
read the original abstract

The digitization of democratic processes promises greater accessibility but presents challenges in terms of security, privacy, and verifiability. Existing electronic voting systems often rely on centralized architectures, creating single points of failure and forcing too much trust in authorities, which contradicts democratic principles. This research addresses the challenge of creating a secure, private e-voting system with minimized trust dependencies designed for the most versatile personal device: the smartphone. We introduce SmartphoneDemocracy, a novel e-voting protocol that combines three key technologies: the emerging European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet for Sybil-resistant identity verification, Zero-Knowledge Proofs for privacy-preserving validation, and a peer-to-peer blockchain (TrustChain) for a resilient, serverless public bulletin board. Our protocol enables voters to register and cast ballots anonymously and verifiably directly from their smartphones. We provide a detailed protocol design, a security analysis against a defined threat model, and a performance evaluation demonstrating that the computational and network overhead is feasible for medium- to large-scale elections. By developing and prototyping this system, we demonstrate a viable path to empower citizens with a trustworthy, accessible, and user-controlled digital voting experience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Registration sequence diagram illustrating the interaction between the Voter’s App, EUDI Wallet, and the Verifier, culminating in a transaction to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example app screenshots displaying election list, election details, and EUDI Wallet confirmation, respectively. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example app using Android Rapidsnark for proof generation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The knowl- edge complexity of interactive proof systems,

    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, “The knowl- edge complexity of interactive proof systems,” Siam J. Comput, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 186–208, 1989

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Public-key cryptosystems based on compos- ite degree residuosity classes,

    P. Paillier, “Public-key cryptosystems based on compos- ite degree residuosity classes,” in International confer- ence on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques, Springer, 1999, pp. 223–238

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Practical threshold rsa signatures without a trusted dealer,

    I. Damg ˚ard and M. Koprowski, “Practical threshold rsa signatures without a trusted dealer,” in International conference on the theory and applications of crypto- graphic techniques, Springer, 2001, pp. 152–165

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Constructing elliptic curves with prescribed embedding degrees,

    P. S. Barreto, B. Lynn, and M. Scott, “Constructing elliptic curves with prescribed embedding degrees,” in International conference on security in communication networks, Springer, 2002, pp. 257–267

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    The sybil attack,

    J. R. Douceur, “The sybil attack,” in International work- shop on peer-to-peer systems , Springer, 2002, pp. 251– 260

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Short group signatures,

    D. Boneh, X. Boyen, and H. Shacham, “Short group signatures,” in Annual international cryptology confer- ence, Springer, 2004, pp. 41–55

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices,

    C. Gentry, “Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices,” in Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 2009, pp. 169–178

    2009

  8. [8]

    A generaliza- tion of paillier’s public-key system with applications to electronic voting,

    I. Damg ˚ard, M. Jurik, and J. B. Nielsen, “A generaliza- tion of paillier’s public-key system with applications to electronic voting,” International Journal of Information Security, vol. 9, pp. 371–385, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    From extractable collision resistance to succinct non- interactive arguments of knowledge, and back again,

    N. Bitansky, R. Canetti, A. Chiesa, and E. Tromer, “From extractable collision resistance to succinct non- interactive arguments of knowledge, and back again,” in Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference , 2012, pp. 326–349

    2012

  2. [10]

    E-voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters,

    A. Powell, C. K. Williams, D. B. Bock, T. Doellman, and J. Allen, “E-voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 361–372, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    V oting made safe and easy: The impact of e-voting on citizen perceptions,

    R. M. Alvarez, I. Levin, J. Pomares, and M. Leiras, “V oting made safe and easy: The impact of e-voting on citizen perceptions,” Political Science Research and Methods, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 117–137, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Buterin, A next-generation smart contract and de- centralized application platform , Whitepaper, 2014

    V . Buterin, A next-generation smart contract and de- centralized application platform , Whitepaper, 2014. [Online]. Available: https : / / ethereum . org / content / whitepaper / whitepaper - pdf / Ethereum Whitepaper - Buterin 2014.pdf

    2014

  5. [13]

    On the size of pairing-based non-interactive arguments,

    J. Groth, “On the size of pairing-based non-interactive arguments,” in Advances in Cryptology–EUROCRYPT 2016: 35th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Vienna, Austria, May 8-12, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 35, Springer, 20...

    2016

  6. [14]

    E-voting: What do judges say?

    A. D. Maurer, “E-voting: What do judges say?” In E- Voting Case Law, Routledge, 2016, pp. 1–20. [Online]. Available: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/133880/1/ Driza E-V oting 2015.pdf

    2016

  7. [15]

    Scalable multi- party computation for zk-snark parameters in the ran- dom beacon model,

    S. Bowe, A. Gabizon, and I. Miers, “Scalable multi- party computation for zk-snark parameters in the ran- dom beacon model,” Cryptology ePrint Archive , 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Alethea: A provably secure random sample voting protocol,

    D. Basin, S. Radomirovic, and L. Schmid, “Alethea: A provably secure random sample voting protocol,” in 2018 IEEE 31st Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) , 2018, pp. 283–297. DOI: 10.1109/ CSF.2018.00028

    2018

  9. [17]

    Scalable, transparent, and post-quantum secure com- putational integrity,

    E. Ben-Sasson, I. Bentov, Y . Horesh, and M. Riabzev, “Scalable, transparent, and post-quantum secure com- putational integrity,” Cryptology ePrint Archive , 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Bulletproofs: Short proofs for confidential transactions and more,

    B. B ¨unz, J. Bootle, D. Boneh, A. Poelstra, P. Wuille, and G. Maxwell, “Bulletproofs: Short proofs for confidential transactions and more,” in 2018 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP) , IEEE, 2018, pp. 315–334

    2018

  11. [19]

    Campanelli, D

    M. Campanelli, D. Fiore, and A. Querol, LegoSNARK: Modular design and composition of succinct zero- knowledge proofs , Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2019/142, 2019. DOI: 10 . 1145 / 3319535 . 3339820. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/142

    2019

  12. [20]

    An implemen- tation of the paillier crypto system with threshold de- cryption without a trusted dealer,

    T. Veugen, T. Attema, and G. Spini, “An implemen- tation of the paillier crypto system with threshold de- cryption without a trusted dealer,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Tfhe: Fast fully homomorphic encryption over the torus,

    I. Chillotti, N. Gama, M. Georgieva, and M. Izabach `ene, “Tfhe: Fast fully homomorphic encryption over the torus,” Journal of Cryptology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 34–91, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Provotum: A blockchain-based and end-to-end verifiable remote electronic voting system,

    C. Killer, B. Rodrigues, E. J. Scheid, et al., “Provotum: A blockchain-based and end-to-end verifiable remote electronic voting system,” in 2020 IEEE 45th Confer- ence on Local Computer Networks (LCN) , IEEE, 2020, pp. 172–183

    2020

  15. [23]

    Trustchain: A sybil-resistant scalable blockchain,

    P. Otte, M. de V os, and J. Pouwelse, “Trustchain: A sybil-resistant scalable blockchain,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 107, pp. 770–780, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Secureballot: A secure open source e-voting system,

    V . Agate, A. De Paola, P. Ferraro, G. L. Re, and M. Morana, “Secureballot: A secure open source e-voting system,” Journal of Network and Computer Applica- tions, vol. 191, p. 103 165, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Gailly, M

    N. Gailly, M. Maller, and A. Nitulescu, Snark- Pack: Practical SNARK aggregation, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2021/529, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/529

    2021

  18. [26]

    Electionblock: An electronic voting system using blockchain and fingerprint authentication,

    M. Ibrahim, K. Ravindran, H. Lee, O. Farooqui, and Q. H. Mahmoud, “Electionblock: An electronic voting system using blockchain and fingerprint authentication,” in 2021 IEEE 18th International Conference on Soft- ware Architecture Companion (ICSA-C), 2021, pp. 123–

    2021

  19. [27]

    Trends in blockchain-based electronic voting systems,

    M. Pawlak and A. Poniszewska-Mara ´nda, “Trends in blockchain-based electronic voting systems,” Infor- mation Processing & Management , vol. 58, no. 4, p. 102 595, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Preukschat and D

    A. Preukschat and D. Reed, Self-sovereign identity . Manning Publications, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Circom: A circuit description lan- guage for building zero-knowledge applications,

    M. Bell ´es-Mu˜noz, M. Isabel, J. L. Mu ˜noz-Tapia, A. Ru- bio, and J. Baylina, “Circom: A circuit description lan- guage for building zero-knowledge applications,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 4733–4751, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Analysis of blockchain solutions for e- voting: A systematic literature review,

    A. Benabdallah, A. Audras, L. Coudert, N. El Madhoun, and M. Badra, “Analysis of blockchain solutions for e- voting: A systematic literature review,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 70 746–70 759, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    arkworks contributors, arkworks zksnark ecosystem ,

  24. [32]

    Inter- net voting in estonia 2005–2019: Evidence from eleven elections,

    P. Ehin, M. Solvak, J. Willemson, and P. Vinkel, “Inter- net voting in estonia 2005–2019: Evidence from eleven elections,” Government Information Quarterly , vol. 39, no. 4, p. 101 718, 2022, ISSN : 0740-624X. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101718. [Online]. Availabl...

    2005

  25. [33]

    Stallard, BrightID: Universal proof of uniqueness , Whitepaper, Accessed on June 11, 2025, Jan

    A. Stallard, BrightID: Universal proof of uniqueness , Whitepaper, Accessed on June 11, 2025, Jan. 2022. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . brightid . org / whitepaper

    2025

  26. [34]

    Design and implementation of systems interfaces for a mixnet-based voting system,

    R. W ¨aspi, “Design and implementation of systems interfaces for a mixnet-based voting system,” Bachelor Thesis - Communication Systems Group (CSG) , 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Tessaro and C

    S. Tessaro and C. Zhu, Revisiting BBS signatures, Cryp- tology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/275, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/275

    2023

  28. [36]

    E-voting meets blockchain: A survey,

    M.-V . Vladucu, Z. Dong, J. Medina, and R. Rojas- Cessa, “E-voting meets blockchain: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 23 293–23 308, 2023. DOI: 10.1109/ ACCESS.2023.3253682

    2023

  29. [37]

    Bernstein and M

    G. Bernstein and M. Sporny, Data integrity bbs crypto- suites v1.0, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3. org/TR/vc-di-bbs/

    2024

  30. [38]

    Evaluating the ef- ficiency of zk-snark, zk-stark, and bulletproof in real- world scenarios: A benchmark study,

    M. El-Hajj and B. Oude Roelink, “Evaluating the ef- ficiency of zk-snark, zk-stark, and bulletproof in real- world scenarios: A benchmark study,” English,Informa- tion (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 8, Aug. 2024, Publisher Copyright: © 2024 by the authors., ISSN : 2078-2489. DOI:...

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    System- atic review: Comparing zk-snark, zk-stark, and bullet- proof protocols for privacy-preserving authentication,

    B. Oude Roelink, M. El-Hajj, and D. Sarmah, “System- atic review: Comparing zk-snark, zk-stark, and bullet- proof protocols for privacy-preserving authentication,” Security and Privacy , vol. 7, no. 5, e401, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    S. Park, J. Choi, J. Kim, and H. Oh, zkVoting : Zero- knowledge proof based coercion-resistant and E2E veri- fiable e-voting system, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2024/1003, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr. org/2024/1003

    2024

  33. [41]

    The European Parliament and the Council of the Euro- pean Union, Regulation (eu) 2024/1183 on amending regulation (eu) no 910/2014 as regards establishing the european digital identity framework , Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/ 2024/1183

    2024

  34. [42]

    Enhancing democratic processes: A survey of dre, internet, and blockchain in electronic voting systems,

    M. Alown, M. S. Kiraz, and M. A. Bingol, “Enhancing democratic processes: A survey of dre, internet, and blockchain in electronic voting systems,” IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Altman, A

    S. Altman, A. Blania, and M. Novendstern, World: The real human network. identity, finance and com- munity for every human. Whitepaper, available at https://whitepaper.world.org/. Use the most recent ver- sion., 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Looker, V

    T. Looker, V . Kalos, A. Whitehead, and M. Lodder, The bbs signature scheme , Internet-Draft, IETF, Work in Progress, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https : / / datatracker . ietf . org / doc / html / draft - irtf - cfrg - bbs - signatures-08

    2025

  37. [45]

    D. L. A. contributors, GitHub - docknetwork/crypto: Rust crypto library for data privacy tools — github.com. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/docknetwork/ crypto. APPENDIX A SECURITY ANALYSIS Table V provides an overview of the risk analysis for the SmartphoneDemocracy ...

  38. [129]

    DOI: 10.1109/ICSA-C52384.2021.00033

    2021

  39. [2022]

    Available: https://arkworks.rs

    [Online]. Available: https://arkworks.rs

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.