It's interesting because I can, for example, resell my Woodstock ticket on an open market.

Remember, it's trivially easy to follow transactions on the block chain. So the ticket seller can see whether an NFT has been resold, and can just refuse to honour it. Or only honour the first wallet it was in, regardless of whether it is still there or not.

Nevermind the society or the environment. If money can be made, money shall be made, no matter how shady a business /s

But yeah, everyone involved likes to say that they hate scalpers. So no one will do anything to help them.

Woodstock was a legendary event.

The tickets would now be considered collectors items.

That being said, it could reduce the need for new products/versions being created every other week. However, there would need to be a somewhat centralized 'marketplace' that facilities the second hand sales which is where Walmart could step in with some perks for selling with them.

(Just like houses that come with less ongoing taxes or other burdens go for more money.)

If they don't, then the name of the original buyer is likely part of the hashed information, and anyone else trying to use the ticket is out of luck.

NFTs still require recognition by the authority actually controlling the goods/services in question.

How does blockchain make it interesting?

That is not going to happen, for the same reasons why most people don't dig their own wells, learn carpentry to make their own furniture, or weave their own cloth and learn how to tailor clothes.

Every complex enough system will always have centralized points, aka. gatekeepers. That is how human society self-organises.

>Every complex enough system will always have centralized points, aka. gatekeepers. That's where the problem is. 3rd partys have been introduced for security reasons but are nowadays far from it and that's what some people are actually fighting for. An autonomous system where the only pseudo 3rd party is an impartial public registry

Again: Most people will not use a more complex solution when a simpler one exists, regardless of whether the simpler solution requires a central authority. Example: People used to use IRC, which is a really easy to use system. Then along came chatrooms, and then centralized messenger systems. Sure, some people still use IRC, but they are not the majority.

> That's where the problem is. 3rd partys have been introduced for security reasons but are nowadays far from it and that's what some people are actually fighting for.

Which systems are "far from it"? The financial system? I get my paycheck every month, all payment processes work fine. The government systems? Elections in my country work flawlessly, tallied and protected by central authorities. The power grid? I haven't had an outage in 4 years, and the last one lasted all of 10 minutes. Public Transport in my country is affordable, well maintained and usually on time.

So it seems to me that centralized systems work just fine in the vast majority of cases.

That is an advantage if you're going to engage in behavior any reasonable person would despise you for.

> the absolute lack of need of a third party

If you're scalping tickets, you are the third party.

I don't really get the part on how selling something you own p2p makes you a third party and I don't care about the 2nd hand tickets market, I'm only intrested in a safe decentralized p2p market

> I don't really get the part on how selling something you own p2p makes you a third party and I don't care about the 2nd hand tickets market, I'm only intrested in a safe decentralized p2p market

The peers in this transaction are the event organizer and the person who ends up with a ticket. The ticket scalper is third party that "facilitates" the transaction at a cost. Essentially a broker that no one asked for.

Why is that interesting, exactly?

Edit All that is marked as "interesting" in crypto is inevitably "how can I profit/get rich quick off something".

Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed.

Silly me.

(I don't think that the capitalist ideal matches reality. But you should at least get the idea if you're gonna disagree.)

Free market as imagined by libertarians can only exist in the presence of unlimited resources and magic.

Markets exist because of scarcity, not because of abundance. If something is available in unlimited abundance, there's no need of a market for it.

The only free market where this is possible is a magical place where there are unlimited resources and ability to create new Woodstocks at the snap of a finger.

Scalpers' motive is to gain profit off of a limited resource. It doesn't matter if the tickets cost even less than the concert costs to produce.

By the way, who determines the "actual worth" of tickets?

> That is not a libertarian fantasy or anything close to it

That is not what I was responding to.

If ticket booths charged exactly what scalpers charge would that change anything for you?

Indeed

> Do people sell tickets for less than the concert costs to produce where you live?

No, they don't, at it's not what I said.

> If ticket booths charged exactly what scalpers charge would that change anything for you?

Ni idea why you're asking me this question

You are interpreting the original comment as uncharitably as possible.

"Additional Woodstocks" can be easily interpreted as "additional concerts similar to Woodstock" without changing the meaning of the comment.

Also, you don't need unlimited resources to create new concerts, and you don't need the "snap of a finger", you simply need people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive (as well as their love for music and live shows) incentivized through the price mechanism.

Yes. Because all of their notions of "one true free market" require unlimited resources and ability to immediately create anything from scratch.

> can be easily interpreted as "additional concerts similar to Woodstock"

Same thing, different attempt to argue semantics.

> Also, you don't need unlimited resources to create new concerts, and you don't need the "snap of a finger", you simply need people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive

I'll repeat this again for the fourth-fifth time in this thread. Literally thousands of concerts exist, "simply" driven by "people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive". And yet, Woodstock is Woodstock. And Sziget is Sziget etc. I wonder why.

The same applies to concerts.

Woodstock, due to various factors is able to charge a premium, but that doesn't mean you can't go to other concerts.

As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options.

The analogy is incorrect when what was claimed was: "So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match"

> As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options.

- 6-day festival pass to Sziget is 315 EUR (~$346).

- Glastonbury (5 days) tickets are ~$365.

So, in check, according to you. And then...

- Coachella $449 and up

- Burning Man (which is not even a concert per se) is $525 and up (some tickets are sold at $2500)

And then...

- Justin Bieber can easily ask for 1000 dollars per ticket and more.

And so on.

Even though, according to you and @FeepingCreature, it's enough to just create another Sziget/Glastonbury/Coachella/Bieber for the prices to go down to an equilibrium.

Oh and there will be no scalpers.

Even though already, now, no one is stopping you from creating thousands of concerts.... and yet the price for those discussed doesn't go down, and scalpers exist.

Same for any sporting events etc.

No offense, but you do not understand art.

Yes, there are a lot of bands that could sell higher priced tickets but don't because they want to be accessable to everyone, not just people with money to burn.

Right now they're not accessible to everyone, they're accessible to rich people and a lottery of poor people.

When prices of a good or service goes up, it incentivises other manufacturers or service providers to produce more of that good or service, which increases supply and puts downward pressure on prices.

So to answer your question, higher priced tickets increases supply, which causes lower priced tickets, which benefits poor people.

Eventually prices reach a level where supply and demand match and (for example) concerts are as cheap as they can be given their cost and the demand in the market for them (including the demand from poor people).

This EconTalk episode on price gouging during a natural disaster was very interesting, and somewhat related to this topic: https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-price-gouging/

Guess why people still go to Sziget or Woodstock.

Also guess why it's impossible to just click your fingers and pull an unlimited number of Woodstocks out of thin air.

The fact that there is a limited number of Woodstocks is irrelevant.

There are other organizers and bands who can also offer concerts, and at a reduced price compared to the premium that something like Woodstock would demand. That's competition, and it puts downward pressure on concert prices in general, thereby helping people on a tight budget.

Why do you think that is?

Hundreds of shitty ape pictures that anyone has access to view has not changed the price of entry to the Louvre.

You do not reduce the price for one form of art by having other artists available. They are all different, and people will want to see one and not another.

So your "proper market" criteria doesn't really exist for anything but digital or virtual goods.

I had this conversation not too long ago, see my comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29282931