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

• Womble@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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 ⁨11⁩ ⁨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