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?
Editing post titles does not count as quality control, in the same ways that some of reddits have such strict rules to the point that mods delete anything that is not exactly within the lines.
HN mods (dang, especifically) don't care about power trips, because they have actual power
HN is not a single-topic community, like a Lemmy group. If you create a /c/technology and say it is a place to post "Anything that good hackers would find interesting", it would quickly derail into a constant meta-discussion.
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.
This is just the result of a lack of quality or subject control.
This is just another way of saying "having mods enforcing super strict rules", which then leads to an ossified culture and a bunch of mods high on their power trip. This was also seen on Reddit and StackOverflow.
Unfortunately, the way to avoid "lowest common denominator" issues that you mention is by going to the places where the denominator is relatively small, but big enough to have network effects in its favor. My experience was that all subreddits between 25k to 500k subscribers worked really well without excessive policing. Between 500k and 1M it could still go by, depending on the moderators. After crossing that mark, things started to deteriorate fast.
If we were to scale that to Lemmy, it means that all communities with a subscriber count >= 1% of the total network will fall into "deteriorate fast" territory.
The annoying thing with these reductionist views is that they miss the potential applications.
"JPEGs in the blockchain" is indeed a pointless use case and were so hyped because of greed and a ZIRP world. This doesn't mean that all applications built on top of NFTs are worthless. For example, one could see a well-thought ticketing system based on NFTs that could destroy Ticketmaster.
You are not going to get that at any of the larger communities. We'll need to grow the niche communities instead, more specific to your interests.
Could you please take a look at https://fediverser.network to see if gives you anything interesting?
I'm yet to understand why people downvote comments like yours. Your answer was on-topic, provided a reasoning, was well-written... even if I haven't fully recovered from the trauma of having two wordpress sites hacked, I still think your comment has merit.
Then we are going to go in circles: people already described use-cases and your knee-jerk reaction is to respond with "but I can do *something vaguely related* with OVH".
This gets tiring, and I'd rather do something else with my time. Have a good one.
Are you trying to really understand how the thing works, or are you just looking for ways to dismiss the thing so that you can remain ignorant about it.
We're talking about data transmission caps (as in, 1TB/month), not in bandwidth (as in 800MB/s) Also, IPFS is a protocol. The "cap" of the network is only theoretically bound by the amount of nodes running in it, but in practice it doesn't really matter because the bandwidth of any single node will always end up being the real bottleneck.
You are really failing to understand how it works, and I am failing to explain it properly.
similar to https://mysite.com/folder1/IMG.jpg
No. Similar to a Distributed Hash Table. It won't matter if people go https://mysite or https://yoursite`. With a DHT, all you need is the hash of the file, and your node will be able to locate all servers who have the relevant pieces of data and send it to you.
"IPFS" can not have a cap, because IPFS is not a service provider. IPFS is a protocol.
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.