571
From millions of dollars to under a grand: The dramatic fall of the NFT (english.elpais.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
219 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

You can replace the middlemen without involving Blockchain.

I am not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm saying Blockchain is overly complicated, inflexible and superfluous.

Whatever solution you design with Blockchain, I can redesign without Blockchain without losing anything -- and gaining simplicity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Ok, here are your requirements:

    1. A ticket exchange that provides permission less access and trust less verification of ticket authenticity and ownership (we should be free to use independent exchange services).

    2. Tickets must be transferable between parties without intermediary controlling and approving exchanges (or you're just the new middleman).

    3. Rules around issuing tickets, resales, and revocation must be enforceable transparently.

    Good luck friend. LMK what you come up with. I think what might be more productive to the conversation is if you state which of these requirements is not important (and why it is not important) because I can guarantee you can't make a system that meets these without a blockchain-esque system.

    FWIW, if you don't understand why blockchain technology is unique, in that it can solve problems NOT POSSIBLE with other technology, then you haven't studied it enough. There are tradeoffs of course when designing systems, including efficiency and cost, etc. which makes blockchain irrelevant for 99% of system designs. But that doesn't mean the technology is not unique.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Point 3 is where it all breaks down for me.

    We already have a legal system to enforce rules, trying to replace that with a self-enforcing Blockchain just doesn't work for most people. And when courts disagree with the smart contract, or there's a bug, or someone's key is phished.... It's an interesting idea, but it isn't practical.

    Anyway, I don't see the point of any of this. You ultimately need to trust the provider of the service the ticket entitles you to. All the decentralised smart contracts in the world won't help you if they're scamming you.

    So just trust them. With a database. If you really want, produce digitally signed tickets that can be verified against that database with an API. Throw in a Merkle tree if you really want transparency. (why do I, as a event-goer, actually care about transparency?)

    Or hell, just print physical tickets that can be physically transferred.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Requirement 3 was just nice to haves to make a better culture around ticketing to fight scalpers and related problems. The first two are mostly the meat of the ticketing ecosystem.

    You ultimately need to trust the provider

    That's not the ultimate trust, and whether or not I trust them has no bearing on purchasing tickets. The point is, people can sell me a fake ticket and I won't really know until I get to the venue. Providers committing fraud is pretty rare.

    All the decentralised smart contracts in the world won’t help you if they’re scamming you.

    You don't know what you're talking about then. You can absolutely prove the vender issued the NFT. And you can absolutely prove you own the NFT. And you can absolutely transfer ownership of the NFT in a provable way. I don't know what other argument to make if you just believe incorrect facts.

    So just trust them. With a database.

    I really don't understand the desire for you to want to pay 15 to 30% fees to go to a venue. Is it hard for you to imagine a world where that is not necessary?

    If you really want, produce digitally signed tickets that can be verified against that database with an API.

    That's requirement 2. I should be free to hand my ticket to someone else, digitally. Now we both need to have some custom software talking to your database, and we are in integration hell trying to get ownership transferred in a secure way. Now we're running a business equivalent to StubHub with thousands of staff trying to have clients upload their tickets to this database in a verifiable way, for no purpose other than you don't want to admit blockchains solve some interesting problems.

    why do I, as a event-goer, actually care about transparency?

    Because you want to know you own the ticket. Can you imagine flying to a town, getting to a venue, and holding a fake ticket? Oof...

    Or hell, just print physical tickets that can be physically transferred.

    I don't think we're really having a debate anymore. You can print your physical tickets from Ticketmaster. It doesn't remove their 30% fee. It doesn't make ticketing more convenient. Why invent solutions to problems we aren't talking about?

    Throw in a Merkle tree if you really want transparency.

    How does a retrievable Merkletree from a database meet any of the requirements I asked for? What does that even mean, to throw in a Merkle tree? Are you trying to convince me you can prevent double-writes to the database? What is this API you are imagining, where I can give ownership of a ticket to someone else? And now we've got thousands of venues with their own schemas. What are you even arguing here? It just sounds like you want to hate blockchains, heh.

    And when courts disagree with the smart contract, or there’s a bug, or someone’s key is phished… It’s an interesting idea, but it isn’t practical.

    The third requirement was to cover some of this. Vendor canceling tickets and other maintenance actions. Courts are involved all the time with existing businesses, so I am not sure why "courts" is a counterpoint to an NFT backed ticket ecosystem. If anything, it makes it stupidly clear to the courts who "owns" the ticket. People can be phished right now, so I am not sure how that's a counter-point to any of the requirements I mentioned. If the customer can prove they were phished, it is extremely easy to revoke the NFT and issue a new one.

    Anyways, I think we've run this course. Ive enjoyed chatting. My goal was just to raise some awareness since I only see poorly thought out critiques of NFTs. There are some good reasons to not want an NFT system, but there are also some unique benefits.

    Cheers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    You can prove whatever you want. The venue can still tell you to go away. The courts can tell you to go away. The venue don't want you to be able to sell your ticket to, e.g. football hooligans.

    I don't want to pay 30% fees, but Ticketmaster want you to pay them and the venues are happy to contract with them. They don't want to build some NFT exchange and directly book events. So Ticketmaster is providing them that service. They have no need for Blockchain, they get fees and simplicity without it.

    But this conversation clearly isn't going anywhere, good luck with your free, open, unused ticket exchange.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent