←back to thread

204 points pabs3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | 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 #
1. _rami_ ◴[] No.44094465[source]
(Author here) Anything else than first-come-first-served requires strong identity to avoid people trying to get better chances with many entries into the pool, thus falling into the "sacrificing privacy" category