From: skybuckflying@gmail.com   
      
   The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable   
   time.   
      
   The human-only puzzle can be generated by a computer algorithm, the computer   
   algorithm must not know the solution before hand.   
      
   The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or   
   machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it   
   was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.   
      
   Perhaps a slightly wrong answer, which may by typical for humans but not   
   computers might also be of some value to determine the humanness of the voter.   
   Even multiple puzzles could be tried to detect a human brain from a deep   
   learning/machine learning    
   brain.   
      
   Once the solved puzzle(s) are analyzed and determined to originate from a   
   human brain, the voter may proceed and cast their vote.   
      
   The solution to the puzzles are then broadcasted to a peep 2 peer/distributed   
   system where they are collected.   
      
   Before transmission these puzzle solutions + votes are lightly hashed by the   
   voter to prevent manipulation allong the communication line.   
      
   Encrypted communication channels with strong miners may be preferred where    
   strong mines can communicate over an encrypted channel and re-hash/re-secure   
   the puzzle solution + vote data with a stronger hash.   
      
   The stronger hashed puzzle solution + vote data is then send back to the voter   
   for verification/checking that it is indeed his cast vote.   
      
   The voter has a signature which allows the votes to re-call his vote if any   
   irregularity is detected by the voter within period V... in which V is the   
   legal time within votes may be record into the system. Any votes arriving   
   beyond V are invalid.   
      
   The voter must have a grace period to recall any wrongly or manipulated votes.   
      
   This recall time will be R on top of V so it will be RT = V+R   
      
   RT = RecallTime   
      
   From 0 to RT the voter may issue re-call transmissions to inform the network   
   that his votes has been manipulated and should be recalled and not counted in   
   the vote totalling.   
      
   Or at the very least the vote should be marked as "invalid/recalled" by voter.   
      
   To compensate for the vote loss, the voter may re-cast his vote one time by   
   contacting another miner and proceeding to vote again.   
      
   This voting times will be VR for votes recalled and will be placed on top of   
      
   V+R so it will be V+R+VR thus there will be a time penalty for the voter to do   
   it again to prevent abuse/unnecessary communications with the voting system at   
   the expense of the voters time.   
      
   Now one more recall period is issued. V+R+VR+R2 where the voter again may   
   re-call his vote.   
      
   As they say, three times is a lucky charm.   
      
   This may then be done one last time   
      
   V1+R1+VR1 + R2 + VR2 + R3   
      
   So basically we can clean this up as:   
      
   V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3  + R3   
      
   So they voter may broadcast his vote to the system 3 times and he may recall   
   it 3 times.   
      
   Where the votes must have gone via a different miner for each V1, V2, V3.   
      
   By marking recalled votes in the system, this gives users to possibility to   
   indicate that they believe irregularties or manipulation has occured and then   
   others can investigate the systems of these miners and if they ammount of   
   re-called votes is very    
   high, votes can then decide to not use those miners anymore and thus the   
   system can become a "self-cleaning" system were manipulating systems are   
   out-expelled from the system.   
      
   Finally one the total voting period is over:   
      
   TV = V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3   
      
   the votes are tallied/summed by the p2p system, everybody participating with a   
   node can then start summing the results and see the voting results.   
      
   What is left to do is an injection system where nominees/groups can inject   
   themselfes into the system ready to be voted upon.   
      
   Such an injection system is necessary as well to prevent "pre-selected   
   candidates" by a small control group.   
      
   Such an injection system may be and will possibly be abused though it will be   
   necessary to store all injectees into a nice tree of some sorts and a search   
   system should be enabled so votes can search for the parties or groups or   
   people they want to vote    
   for.   
      
   One possible idea which comes to mind is that nominees can create a public   
   key/number which they can put on their cards/websites/e-mails etc to inform   
   the voters that it is them.   
      
   The voter can then search for this public key in the system. These public keys   
   are also distributed among the p2p system and the associated nominee data.   
      
   The voter can thus cast it's vote by including this public key in it's vote as   
   the nominee.   
      
   Additional data about the candidate/nominee should also be included into the   
   system. So that the system itself also becomes a slight information   
   distribution system, such that voters can read about intentions of the   
   candidate/nominee especially in light    
   with todays boycotts/bans of certain candidates from existing me   
   ia/communication channels.   
      
   Thus the candidate will have a remaining/functioning communication channel to   
   broadcast it's view points for the voter to decide upon.   
      
   This data may be limited to within reasonable limits, 1 megabyte of data seems   
   reasonable per candidate, where an expected maximum candidate is 1000.   
      
   In case more and more candidates are added to the system, this upper limit can   
   start to shrink down to a minimum limit of 32 kilobytes.   
      
   In the case of system/candidate attack, this should still allow some   
   reasonable ammount of information to be acquired/stored/broadcasted.   
      
   To inject candidate information into the system should require some light   
   mining by the candidate themselfes to prevent candidate spam.   
      
   To further prevent candidate spam there will be an opening time when the   
   system can be injected with candidate information.   
      
   This date will be D.   
      
   The system itself will present the candidate again with a human-only-solveable   
   puzzle. The candidate must solve this puzzle first.   
      
   Once this puzzle is solved the candidate will be injected legally into the   
   system. (Additional some light mining could be introduced, but barring   
   candidates by technical means does not feel good, thus a human-only solveable   
   puzzle should be sufficient).   
      
   After DT time this candidate period will be over.   
      
   Where DT is the time candidates have to inject themselfes into the system.   
      
   DT could be set to 1 day.   
      
   After DT has passed voting can begin. Where V + R and such begin.   
      
   This should keep candidate spam to a minimum.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)