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

• Womble@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨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 ⁨9⁩ ⁨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 ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

      • rglullis@communick.news ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        that is a single entity controlling the process.

        At any given individual event, yes. But if there is any abuse, it is easy to change said entity.

        What I have in mind would be that we can take all these separate functions performed by a large company and break them apart. A centralized organization could be broken apart, but that would require a lot more political power than by simply designing up the system in a way that all functionality is spilt and has to conform to a specific interface.

        transfer fees… more expensive

        Are you talking about the blockchain fees or the ones established by the “smart contract”? If the former, those can easily be avoidable by using a separate blockchain (specific for the use case and backed/supported by the participating venues, which would be glad to pay anything reasonable compared to the racket run by Ticketmaster), or like I said, not even use a blockchain at all and just stick with a permissioned consensus system.

        source