this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
1149 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
4597 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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 why is that needed?
And someone in the real world has to look at that and let the person through the door, how 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? Even if it was an NFT how does that help when you have no control over the system that maps NFTs to seats? 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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.