The advantage of a common ledger I can think of is that you could trade unrelated assets, and also that you'd need just one set of software/credentials/servers/etc. But, I think you could just have e.g., the Post Office run that common ledger though, and save the planet...
-
-
Replying to @chadbarb @BartronPolygon and
At its core, all the expenditure is to preclude double-spending without having a trusted third party. So just.. trust a third party. An issue with the common ledger is that e.g., ticketmaster doesn't *want* a secondary trade in their assets(tickets) they don't get a piece of.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Tickets are an interesting use case because the event itself can’t be duplicated and happens in one location. Check the blockchain at the door. For digital, I’m trying to picture how e.g., Unity Asset Store would use it unless a consortium of asset stores agreed to interoperate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But the blockchain isn't even "useful" here, because the authoritative thing is _the person at the door_. Either they let you in or they don't. That's the part everyone seems to not get.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not quite. These days the tickets are scanned for validity. In this case, so long as block chain continues to exist, it could be a way to cut out Ticketmaster and other centralized distributors. You don’t need two central authorities (Ticketmaster and the venue) — only the venue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes quite? Who cares if the tickets are scanned? My point is that the person who controls the door (or employs the person who controls the door) chooses what to do with the information that gets scanned. They can choose to use whatever they want.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @BartronPolygon and
Blockchain does literally nothing here. It literally doesn't do anything that a server doesn't do. It guarantees you nothing. It enforces nothing. At any time, the venue can simply choose to or not to let whomever in, however they want - they are in complete control.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
But if they didn’t let you in and you had a legit ticket, could you not take them to court and win?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, but that is precisely my point: it's the law, the government, the court, etc. that is important. The underlying thing that "says" you did something is irrelevant. The court will decide, not the blockchain. It might as well be any ledger technology whatsoever.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @grumpygiant and
This is why you've (presumably) seen me say over and over that crypto solves a problem nobody had: tracking the integers. That's easy. We have many, many ways to do it and they all work. The hard part is law enforcement, and crypto does literally nothing to help.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Yet another way to say it would be that the world after crypto will be identical to the world before crypto. It will still be governments, law, police, and lawsuits over breach of contract. Crypto will have literally no effect, because it doesn't address any of these issues.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.