←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
jsnell ◴[] No.44084931[source]
> So what’s left?

If the profit per successful abuse event is $200, the author's suggestion of limits on credit card numbers or phone numbers won't work either. Those are only effective against scaled abuse up to something like $1 / event. Bank accounts would almost certainly be more robust, but that seems quite hard to implement outside of a handful of countries where the online auth ecosystem is built around banks.

With generic abuse background, but not knowing anything about the ticketing abuse ecosystem, is doing the sales on a first-come-first-serve basis an absolute necessity from a business perspective? There would be a lot more tools available if the problem was reframed from "decide instantly whether to sell this buyer a ticket" to "decide which 10k of these 100k intents of purchase received during the first 24h to sell the tickets to". And by more tools, I mean offline analysis and clustering, not just a lottery.

(You'd still want to combine that with strongly personalized tickets though. It'd be how you address for bots-as-a-service, not how you address buying tickets to resell.)

replies(2): >>44085232 #>>44094465 #
thatguy0900 ◴[] No.44085232[source]
I could see an issue with that since most people are going to be going to events in a group, and won't want to go unless everyone gets their ticket. If I wanted to go with three people, do you lottery us as a group or individually? If I want to go with 5 people and there's a lottery, the best thing to do would be have multiple people buy 5 tickets each, multiply that by every group and you have a lot of people buying tickets who don't actully want them and people who only put one order in get shafted
replies(2): >>44085350 #>>44085612 #
1. muti ◴[] No.44085350[source]
Require the intent to include ticket holder names/id and check it on entry to the venue, multiple intents for the same group can be deduplicated
replies(1): >>44086154 #
2. calcifer ◴[] No.44086154[source]
The article addresses that:

> Of course it also harms real buyers who want to go to a concert with a +1 but do not yet know who they will bring.