4 ms·

Nothing really. A nice vehicle to strip retail investors that don't understand money or tech, or the tech of money. Funnily enough, the only thing I see any va

Nothing really. A nice vehicle to strip retail investors that don't understand money or tech, or the tech of money. Funnily enough, the only thing I see any value in are NFTs. (Remember crypto currencies are essentially just the T in NFT). But not the url asset nonsense. Rather as a distrubuted authentication system. Concert tickets, system access etc. are all viable.

Nursie 4y ago
I’m seeing the concert ticket thing around lately as something this space could “solve”. But why would NFTs or a blockchain be good here? We have an identifiable central authority, the ticket issuer, so… why do we need a decentralised record for that? I mean, you could issue tickets to an event as NFTs, and it would probably work ok, but why bother?
- Eji1700 4y ago
  They absolutely aren't. Or at least not in the way people think. IF the tech has value it won't "Kill ticketmaster". It'll be adopted BY ticketmaster to make sure they have to pay fewer people on the front line to strip money from your wallet. The, in theory, idea is that you can tie an NFT to an account, and make sure it can't be resold, but you could also tie a ticket to an ID, and that'd probably work better because it's not hard to spin up a wallet, get the "ticket" nft, and then sell the whole wallet.
- soneil 4y ago
  It's a nice idea in theory, but only in theory. So the idea as I understand it is that tickets as NFTs would allow you to prove your ownership of the ticket. With tickets being increasingly electronically-issued, there's currently no way to prove you've been sold a genuine ticket, or the only copy of a genuine ticket - until you get to the gate, they read your barcode, and turn you away. So we have a second-hand market that runs through ticketmaster currently, which solves this trust issue by interacting with the issuer directly. Tickets via NFTs would help remove this dependency on ticketmaster, so we could have a healthy, trustworthy second-hand market that doesn't just feel like ticketmaster encouraging bots so they can sell the same ticket twice. So the question is - does this benefit ticketmaster in the slightest? What problems does this solve for them? Because without them issuing the tickets as NFTs in the first place, and recognising them at the gates - it simply doesn't happen. As you say - from the issuer's POV, "why bother?" As far as I can tell, everyone hates the current system - except the people that control it. The solution to this isn't some wonderful modern technology, it's plain and simple competition. So it mostly exists as an example of why you'd want to be able to prove ownership of a unique token. Everyone can see the problem if I print my ticket 10 times and sell it to 10 people, it's easy to explain. The telling question is why we don't have a good example of an implementation.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    The fun thing there is that ticketmaster is still the authority, and could implement rules like "resold NFTickets will not be honoured", which some bands and events are insisting on to try to save their fans from some of the outrageous profiteering, and it would be just as easy with an NFT as it would with a centralised solution to verify this. Possibly easier. I guess my point is that there's already an authority in the picture, and there always will be, so a blockchain solution is unnecessary complexity. What's needed, as you say, is a better authority!
- theelous3 4y ago
  > We have an identifiable central authority, the ticket issuer, so… why do we need a decentralised record for that? And look how well this is going for us? Ticketmaster is one of the the most anti consumer companies in history. There is no need for a single central authority here. Plus you get the benefit of authenticating the tickets in case of resale, etc. It's actually a great usecase. Fraud is rampant, binding tickets to individuals doesn't make sense, and the main issuer is a literal supervillian. Regardless - "concert" tickets isn't even my point. It's as a general purpose access token that literally anyone can verify. There is obvious utility in this.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    You've told me why you think you would like it, not why the industry would embrace it. > There is no need for a single central authority here. Right, but there is one. If it's not tickemaster it could be the venue, the band, anyone. In which case, we don't don't need a trustless, decentralised register. We have a ticket issuer, therefore we don't need a heath-robinson type blockchain arrangement. > Plus you get the benefit of authenticating the tickets in case of resale, etc. Blockchains aren't needed for this. We have a central authority that can easily run its own marketplace, if it shoudl wish to. > Fraud is rampant A central authority can solve this just as well as a blockchain, without the need for the tradeoffs. > binding tickets to individuals doesn't make sense Sure it does, many bands and venues specifically want to prevent resales as it encourages profiteering over fan accessibility. > There is obvious utility in this. Yet the example you came up with doesn't seem to have anything over a more traditional solution, other than "I hate ticketmaster". All of this stuff can be done anyway.
    - theelous3 4y ago
      >You've told me why you think you would like it, not why the industry would embrace it. You're absolutely correct. And this is because I never told you that the industry would embrace it. > Right, but there is one. Right but there's no need. > heath-robinson type blockchain arrangement A system already exists and is perfectly usable and understandable. Hyperbole isn't doing any favours here. > We have a central authority that can easily run its own marketplace, if it shoudl wish to. This is true of all distributed systems. > A central authority can solve this just as well as a blockchain, without the need for the tradeoffs. They haven't though have they? And it comes for free with blockchains, alongside being able to do so without silly blockers like having to sign up for a business account and be verified by ticketmaster and pay fees as though you are a venue etc. etc. > Sure it does, many bands and venues specifically want to prevent resales as it encourages profiteering over fan accessibility. Fair, but this isn't what happens. What happens instead is that not only are people making fake accounts and bots, but the ticket issuer themselves is involved and profiteering. Literally the worst. If this takes place on a public chain then the ownership and scalping of any given ticket is fully traceable. I'll grant you however that blockchain stuff doesn't solve KYC problems. It can certainly help though, given vouching systems by trusted third parties can be implemented and blah blah blah Additionally, overbooking is easy to see coming and know about in advance, as well as a host of other benefits (expecting a big gig? Traffic reports can grep the chain and see attendance expecations. Blah blah public data.) Once again you can say something _ridiculous_ like this can be done by a central authority - but I'll let you be the one to hold your breath for ticketmaster to create data APIs for individual gigs. > All of this stuff can be done anyway. Yes. As discussed everything that can be decentralised can be centralised, basically. Unless you want / care about the additional data transparency and public programmability the chain gives, ofc you won't care.

Nursie 4y ago

I’m seeing the concert ticket thing around lately as something this space could “solve”. But why would NFTs or a blockchain be good here? We have an identifiable central authority, the ticket issuer, so… why do we need a decentralised record for that? I mean, you could issue tickets to an event as NFTs, and it would probably work ok, but why bother?

Eji1700 4y ago
They absolutely aren't. Or at least not in the way people think. IF the tech has value it won't "Kill ticketmaster". It'll be adopted BY ticketmaster to make sure they have to pay fewer people on the front line to strip money from your wallet. The, in theory, idea is that you can tie an NFT to an account, and make sure it can't be resold, but you could also tie a ticket to an ID, and that'd probably work better because it's not hard to spin up a wallet, get the "ticket" nft, and then sell the whole wallet.
soneil 4y ago
It's a nice idea in theory, but only in theory. So the idea as I understand it is that tickets as NFTs would allow you to prove your ownership of the ticket. With tickets being increasingly electronically-issued, there's currently no way to prove you've been sold a genuine ticket, or the only copy of a genuine ticket - until you get to the gate, they read your barcode, and turn you away. So we have a second-hand market that runs through ticketmaster currently, which solves this trust issue by interacting with the issuer directly. Tickets via NFTs would help remove this dependency on ticketmaster, so we could have a healthy, trustworthy second-hand market that doesn't just feel like ticketmaster encouraging bots so they can sell the same ticket twice. So the question is - does this benefit ticketmaster in the slightest? What problems does this solve for them? Because without them issuing the tickets as NFTs in the first place, and recognising them at the gates - it simply doesn't happen. As you say - from the issuer's POV, "why bother?" As far as I can tell, everyone hates the current system - except the people that control it. The solution to this isn't some wonderful modern technology, it's plain and simple competition. So it mostly exists as an example of why you'd want to be able to prove ownership of a unique token. Everyone can see the problem if I print my ticket 10 times and sell it to 10 people, it's easy to explain. The telling question is why we don't have a good example of an implementation.
- Nursie 4y ago
  The fun thing there is that ticketmaster is still the authority, and could implement rules like "resold NFTickets will not be honoured", which some bands and events are insisting on to try to save their fans from some of the outrageous profiteering, and it would be just as easy with an NFT as it would with a centralised solution to verify this. Possibly easier. I guess my point is that there's already an authority in the picture, and there always will be, so a blockchain solution is unnecessary complexity. What's needed, as you say, is a better authority!
theelous3 4y ago
> We have an identifiable central authority, the ticket issuer, so… why do we need a decentralised record for that? And look how well this is going for us? Ticketmaster is one of the the most anti consumer companies in history. There is no need for a single central authority here. Plus you get the benefit of authenticating the tickets in case of resale, etc. It's actually a great usecase. Fraud is rampant, binding tickets to individuals doesn't make sense, and the main issuer is a literal supervillian. Regardless - "concert" tickets isn't even my point. It's as a general purpose access token that literally anyone can verify. There is obvious utility in this.
- Nursie 4y ago
  You've told me why you think you would like it, not why the industry would embrace it. > There is no need for a single central authority here. Right, but there is one. If it's not tickemaster it could be the venue, the band, anyone. In which case, we don't don't need a trustless, decentralised register. We have a ticket issuer, therefore we don't need a heath-robinson type blockchain arrangement. > Plus you get the benefit of authenticating the tickets in case of resale, etc. Blockchains aren't needed for this. We have a central authority that can easily run its own marketplace, if it shoudl wish to. > Fraud is rampant A central authority can solve this just as well as a blockchain, without the need for the tradeoffs. > binding tickets to individuals doesn't make sense Sure it does, many bands and venues specifically want to prevent resales as it encourages profiteering over fan accessibility. > There is obvious utility in this. Yet the example you came up with doesn't seem to have anything over a more traditional solution, other than "I hate ticketmaster". All of this stuff can be done anyway.
  - theelous3 4y ago
    >You've told me why you think you would like it, not why the industry would embrace it. You're absolutely correct. And this is because I never told you that the industry would embrace it. > Right, but there is one. Right but there's no need. > heath-robinson type blockchain arrangement A system already exists and is perfectly usable and understandable. Hyperbole isn't doing any favours here. > We have a central authority that can easily run its own marketplace, if it shoudl wish to. This is true of all distributed systems. > A central authority can solve this just as well as a blockchain, without the need for the tradeoffs. They haven't though have they? And it comes for free with blockchains, alongside being able to do so without silly blockers like having to sign up for a business account and be verified by ticketmaster and pay fees as though you are a venue etc. etc. > Sure it does, many bands and venues specifically want to prevent resales as it encourages profiteering over fan accessibility. Fair, but this isn't what happens. What happens instead is that not only are people making fake accounts and bots, but the ticket issuer themselves is involved and profiteering. Literally the worst. If this takes place on a public chain then the ownership and scalping of any given ticket is fully traceable. I'll grant you however that blockchain stuff doesn't solve KYC problems. It can certainly help though, given vouching systems by trusted third parties can be implemented and blah blah blah Additionally, overbooking is easy to see coming and know about in advance, as well as a host of other benefits (expecting a big gig? Traffic reports can grep the chain and see attendance expecations. Blah blah public data.) Once again you can say something _ridiculous_ like this can be done by a central authority - but I'll let you be the one to hold your breath for ticketmaster to create data APIs for individual gigs. > All of this stuff can be done anyway. Yes. As discussed everything that can be decentralised can be centralised, basically. Unless you want / care about the additional data transparency and public programmability the chain gives, ofc you won't care.