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.

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.

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.

But Blockchain/NFTs solve the easy part of the problem that is already sufficiently solved with a database. Now you’re suggesting using NFTs and a database? Why bother.

They’re different lengths and different sets of letters, so, uh, no?

What difference does it make if you call it a conversation or whatever you would call it? The LLM responded to his messages with its own messages.

Arguing semantics of what counts as a conversation doesn’t really address the actual point, does it?

Maybe those trying and failing to conceive?

How is that pedantic point relevant?

Strange, that’s what I thought after reading your comments.

You also seem to be illiterate.