3 ms·

I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now. From another comment you've made "I stopped making an effort [appreciating

I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now. From another comment you've made "I stopped making an effort [appreciating a pro-blockchain point of view] five-seven years ago for many obvious reasons," I won't bother to re-list them. If you aren't going to engage in good faith because you've imagined me to be a crypto-proponent, I'd appreciate it if you'd at least read what you're trying to argue with.

dmitriid 4y ago
> I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now. Oh, I have. None of those are tangibl benefits to either the venues or to the consumers. Or are not issues to begin with. All you propose is to build a tower of babel to kinda maybe solve minor issues. I especially like this: " smart contracts can allow a rake to be collected on each resale of a ticket." Ah yeah, let's milk money for ever, and ever, and ever. As to collectibel items and NFTs, you don't need NFTs to make collectible items. Especially considering how actual data for this bullshit is always invariably stored on a centralised server somewhere. But sure. "Benefits". That's one of the many reason why I stopped making an effort [appreciating a pro-blockchain point of view] five-seven years ago. Because all the bullshit that crypto absolutists come up with is so far removed from reality. And that's even for the simplest use cases like selling one ticket ot a single person for a single concert.
- bmelton 4y ago
  You have mistaken me for a crypto-absolutist, as well as your dismissals as real. Resales already happen now, so your "money forever and ever" counter-argument isn't particularly persuasive, and if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now, and there exists a real solution for it. "Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K" Despite your imagining otherwise, there are undoubtedly non-blockchain solutions that can be built here to solve those real problems, but there are real solutions to them now that for whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > You have mistaken me for a crypto-absolutist, Well, if the shoe fits... > if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now There are so many things wrong with this. 1. You assume that as matter of indisputable fact that venues are absolutely entitled to a cut on any ticket resales, in perpetuity. 2. You assume that people reselling tickets (and venues not getting a cut) is a problem. It isn't, really. This is somewhat true for a very tiny number of very popular events, and even there there are ways to mitigate it. The hundreds of thousands of events that happen around the world that require the ticket don't have this "problem". 3. It's telling that you assume that it's the venues that have to get in on the cut. Not the concert organisers. Not the actual people in the event (artists, sports teams, presenters etc.) 4. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains it doesn't solve anything. You transfer a ticket to another person for free, and get the money for it in a different transaction. You transfer credentials for the wallet which bought the ticket to a person, you get money in a different transaction. Etc. 5. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains, this one exclusively focuses on a single issue (which is largely inexistent in the grand scheme of things) to cater to the simplest of all the cases (selling a single ticket to a single person). And all this "solution" does is: make it extremely complicated and complex, not really solving anything, and making other legitimate use cases even more extremely complex or impossible (because ticketing is much more than just selling a single ticket to a single person, even if it's the biggest use-case). > "Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K" This is observable reality. There are hundreds of thousands of events that require tickets around the world (probably even on any given day). You buy a ticket, you go in, done. It is a solved problem. > solve those real problems You have to show that it's both a) a real problem, and that b) what you propose is an actual solution, not a "well, if you squint hard enough and ignore reality, it barely works for the simplest of cases, if at all" > or whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously. The only reason I refuse to entertain them is because you keep failing to show how it is a solution to anything. Given the list of issues I listed above that are immediately obvious to anyone with half a brain and a grasp on reality. And yes, that is an issue with almost literally anything that has "block and chain contiguously".

dmitriid 4y ago

> I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now. Oh, I have. None of those are tangibl benefits to either the venues or to the consumers. Or are not issues to begin with. All you propose is to build a tower of babel to kinda maybe solve minor issues. I especially like this: " smart contracts can allow a rake to be collected on each resale of a ticket." Ah yeah, let's milk money for ever, and ever, and ever. As to collectibel items and NFTs, you don't need NFTs to make collectible items. Especially considering how actual data for this bullshit is always invariably stored on a centralised server somewhere. But sure. "Benefits". That's one of the many reason why I stopped making an effort [appreciating a pro-blockchain point of view] five-seven years ago. Because all the bullshit that crypto absolutists come up with is so far removed from reality. And that's even for the simplest use cases like selling one ticket ot a single person for a single concert.

bmelton 4y ago
You have mistaken me for a crypto-absolutist, as well as your dismissals as real. Resales already happen now, so your "money forever and ever" counter-argument isn't particularly persuasive, and if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now, and there exists a real solution for it. "Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K" Despite your imagining otherwise, there are undoubtedly non-blockchain solutions that can be built here to solve those real problems, but there are real solutions to them now that for whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > You have mistaken me for a crypto-absolutist, Well, if the shoe fits... > if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now There are so many things wrong with this. 1. You assume that as matter of indisputable fact that venues are absolutely entitled to a cut on any ticket resales, in perpetuity. 2. You assume that people reselling tickets (and venues not getting a cut) is a problem. It isn't, really. This is somewhat true for a very tiny number of very popular events, and even there there are ways to mitigate it. The hundreds of thousands of events that happen around the world that require the ticket don't have this "problem". 3. It's telling that you assume that it's the venues that have to get in on the cut. Not the concert organisers. Not the actual people in the event (artists, sports teams, presenters etc.) 4. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains it doesn't solve anything. You transfer a ticket to another person for free, and get the money for it in a different transaction. You transfer credentials for the wallet which bought the ticket to a person, you get money in a different transaction. Etc. 5. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains, this one exclusively focuses on a single issue (which is largely inexistent in the grand scheme of things) to cater to the simplest of all the cases (selling a single ticket to a single person). And all this "solution" does is: make it extremely complicated and complex, not really solving anything, and making other legitimate use cases even more extremely complex or impossible (because ticketing is much more than just selling a single ticket to a single person, even if it's the biggest use-case). > "Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K" This is observable reality. There are hundreds of thousands of events that require tickets around the world (probably even on any given day). You buy a ticket, you go in, done. It is a solved problem. > solve those real problems You have to show that it's both a) a real problem, and that b) what you propose is an actual solution, not a "well, if you squint hard enough and ignore reality, it barely works for the simplest of cases, if at all" > or whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously. The only reason I refuse to entertain them is because you keep failing to show how it is a solution to anything. Given the list of issues I listed above that are immediately obvious to anyone with half a brain and a grasp on reality. And yes, that is an issue with almost literally anything that has "block and chain contiguously".