{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/votem/proof-of-vote/issues/19","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/votem/proof-of-vote","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/votem/proof-of-vote/issues/19/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/votem/proof-of-vote/issues/19/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/votem/proof-of-vote/issues/19/events","html_url":"https://github.com/votem/proof-of-vote/issues/19","id":327918073,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzMjc5MTgwNzM=","number":19,"title":"Clarification Request - White Paper - Mixing Nodes","user":{"login":"duckranger","id":2087890,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjIwODc4OTA=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2087890?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger","html_url":"https://github.com/duckranger","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/duckranger/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-05-30T22:13:04Z","updated_at":"2018-05-30T22:13:04Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"Page 33\r\nIn the caption for figure 11 claims that a batch of messages to be shuffled is re-shuffled and re-encrypted by multiple nodes in the mix network. \r\n\r\n- The rest of the text in the page does not repeat this claim (so it's only in the caption of the figure)\r\n- I think an explanation of why this is done (if it is done) needs to be provided. As it currently reads, there is no good reason to run the same operation through multiple mix-nodes, as a single mix-node should suffice to re-encrypt and shuffle the vote, and provide a ZKP.\r\n- If every mix node handles every transaction- wouldn't there be a possibility for a rogue node to affect all of the votes (instead of affecting only a portion of them)?"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"duckranger"}}