> 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".
> venues are absolutely entitled to a cut on any ticket resales
No I don't. Moreover, "in perpetuity" is a red herring.
> you assume people reselling tickets is a problem
No I don't. I perceive it as a problem venues are willing to pay to solve.
> It's telling that you assume that it's the venues that have to get in on the cut
Again, no I don't. Anyone on the supply side of this can negotiate this in. The tickets can originate from the artists, and then the organizers, and then the venues. Artists and venues can openly negotiate on this.
I've said before that you're imagining things I'm not, and halfway through your response, that's all you've done. I'm not going to bother to read or reply to the rest.
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".