Comment on I wish there were more articles about tech not tech biz

• rglullis@communick.news ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  nothing that a few database tables couldn’t.

  Transparent consensus about the data can not be achieved with a few database tables.

  You could make the argument that this does need a blockchain and it could be built on another decentralized consensus protocol (like Paxos), but then you’d lose the permissionless aspect of it and such a system would likely end up being control by a monopoly or oligopoly, like the whole ticketing industry is controlled by Ticketmaster today.

  whatever system is deciding what is being pointed to.

  The ticketing use case could work precisely because a ticket is just a pointer. Access to the actual venue/seat would still need to be verified in person, but the issuing of tickets and transactions in the primary/secondary markets are the nasty parts that are exploited by Ticketmaster and gives them so much moat.

  source

  • Womble@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Transparent consensus about the data can not be achieved with a few database tables.

    and why is that needed?

    The ticketing use case could work precisely because a ticket is just a pointer. Access to the actual venue/seat would still need to be verified in person, but the issuing of tickets and transactions in the primary/secondary markets are the nasty parts that are exploited by Ticketmaster and gives them so much moat.

    And someone in the real world has to look at that and let the person through the door, now does the ticket being an NFT help that at all compared to a database entry with a ticket ID tied to a name and requiring ID? Come to think of it, an NFT would just encourage scalping as they are inherantly tradeable and so vulnerable to buying by anonymous accounts and then reselling.

    source

    • rglullis@communick.news ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      so vulnerable to buying by anonymous accounts and then reselling.

      Make the smart contract that forbids multiple transfers, or make transfer more expensive after the initial purchase (unless authorized by some pre-approved address and/or an address that has an associated real ID)

      why is that needed?

      Because we’d like to have a system that can not be manipulated or controlled by a single entity?

      source

      • Womble@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Because we’d like to have a system that can not be manipulated or controlled by a single entity?

        You still do though, that’s the entire point. Whenever your token interacts with the real world who ever is doing that is a single entity controlling the process.

        Make the smart contract that forbids multiple transfers, or make transfer more expensive after the initial purchase (unless authorized by some pre-approved address and/or an address that has an associated real ID)

        So less protection against reselling than a ticket with the name of the person who originally bought it, while also milking large amounts of transfer fees to now have a much larger token with code in it. Why would you you want to have a more complex, more expensive, less good system?

        source

        • -> View More Comments