5 ms·

The galaxy system does indeed seem like the weakest link of Urbit. I personally fail to see how 256 actors, even if we generously assume are all distinct, is mu

The galaxy system does indeed seem like the weakest link of Urbit. I personally fail to see how 256 actors, even if we generously assume are all distinct, is much better than the small handful of actors who control the IP address spaces or the DNS TLDs. His assumption is that it will get more distributed over time, but I really don't buy it. He's designed centralizing vector into the system, which will attract bad actors and will only get concentrated into fewer hands with time and will weaken the intended goal of creating a censorship resistant network. I'm not convinced this address space problem is even one that needs solving. For example, the Lightning Network built on Bitcoin appears to offer a better solution where every identity is simply a public key. Anyone can create any amount of them, no sponsorship needed, and no public keys are any more privileged than others. The system is resistant to spam because in order to convince other nodes in the network to relay information, you need to establish a payment channel by committing to some funds on the bitcoin network, which incurs a transaction fee. The number of potential public keys for secp256k1 is sufficient that for our purposes we can pretend that they're infinite, unlike Urbit IDs. Additionally, the LN has an incentive model for routing built into it, where any intermediate node offering to route a payment can take a small fee in exchange - this removes the necessity for the network to operate on altruism, and also highly encourages competition between node operators, who can be absolutely anyone, to route information. The network can become adequately distributed that no number of entities could collude to block messages as anybody can offer to route in their place - and earn from it. Additionally, nodes offering routing are really just blind actors who take a fee to pass on a message whose contents they don't know and don't know who sent, or who is receiving. Refusing to relay a message is self-harm, as it prevents you from earning the fee on it (and will most likely get you blacklisted, further preventing your ability to earn more fees.)

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
You say you're not a fan of throwing around the term "Nazi" lazily, but immediately in the previous sentence you suggest that you understand Nazism as a combination of "nationalism" and "socialism". Since this is a pretty common cudgel among far-right media commentators, used to disingenuously associate Nazi atrocities with left-wing politics, it's very difficult to read that in anything but bad faith. In fact this misrepresentation is so common that r/askhistorians has an entire section of their FAQ dedicated to explaining it: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_how_socialist_was_national_socialism.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_...
- sparkie 7y ago
  I deleted part of comment above because it was in no way intended to begin an argument about Nazism nor associate it with anybody in particular. I'm not qualified to speak on the subject. I see the word Nazi used all too often where it really does not apply (from both left and right wing commentators), and I was merely suggesting it should not be used so liberally.
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  I agree that calling Nazism left-wing is a misrepresentation, and it's one that is almost always used in bad faith. However, if by "socialism" we mean "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole", then it's fair to call fascism a combination of nationalism and socialism. As far as I understand, Mussolini started out as a socialist, but a bit later in life he rejected international socialism and instead embraced the combination of a form of socialism (in the sense given above) with nationalism. Fascism is not socialism, but it does incorporate socialist elements and was influenced by the socialist movement. Now, if one insists that the term "socialism" be restricted to political and economic systems that do away with (or try to do away with) hierarchy then yes, fascism is not socialist, since fascism explicitly values hierarchy. So basically, it depends on what one means by "socialism".
  - sparkie 7y ago
    Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because they object to socialism or government intervention in markets. It was not my intention to begin an argument, but merely suggest that we should all tone down on the "Nazi" slur as it no longer seems to carry any weight.
    - axguscbklp 7y ago
      >Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? I would say no. >It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because they object to socialism or government intervention in markets. I think this happens mainly for three reasons. 1) Some people support socialism so furiously that they genuinely think pretty much everyone who opposes socialism is part of the same group of "reactionaries", etc. 2) Some people dislike libertarians and try to smear them by calling them Nazis. 3) A certain subset of self-identified libertarians has had, historically, and continues to have now, an involvement with populist conservatism and with right-wing regimes such as Pinochet's. There is also a subset of self-identified libertarians who promote racism, a subset who lean socially conservative, etc. Some self-proclaimed libertarians oppose socialism so furiously that they view right-wing dictatorship as being a better option. Personally, I'd say that people like that are not libertarians at all, but they continue to self-identify as libertarians nonetheless.

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago

You say you're not a fan of throwing around the term "Nazi" lazily, but immediately in the previous sentence you suggest that you understand Nazism as a combination of "nationalism" and "socialism". Since this is a pretty common cudgel among far-right media commentators, used to disingenuously associate Nazi atrocities with left-wing politics, it's very difficult to read that in anything but bad faith. In fact this misrepresentation is so common that r/askhistorians has an entire section of their FAQ dedicated to explaining it: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_how_socialist_was_national_socialism.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_...

sparkie 7y ago
I deleted part of comment above because it was in no way intended to begin an argument about Nazism nor associate it with anybody in particular. I'm not qualified to speak on the subject. I see the word Nazi used all too often where it really does not apply (from both left and right wing commentators), and I was merely suggesting it should not be used so liberally.
axguscbklp 7y ago
I agree that calling Nazism left-wing is a misrepresentation, and it's one that is almost always used in bad faith. However, if by "socialism" we mean "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole", then it's fair to call fascism a combination of nationalism and socialism. As far as I understand, Mussolini started out as a socialist, but a bit later in life he rejected international socialism and instead embraced the combination of a form of socialism (in the sense given above) with nationalism. Fascism is not socialism, but it does incorporate socialist elements and was influenced by the socialist movement. Now, if one insists that the term "socialism" be restricted to political and economic systems that do away with (or try to do away with) hierarchy then yes, fascism is not socialist, since fascism explicitly values hierarchy. So basically, it depends on what one means by "socialism".
- sparkie 7y ago
  Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because they object to socialism or government intervention in markets. It was not my intention to begin an argument, but merely suggest that we should all tone down on the "Nazi" slur as it no longer seems to carry any weight.
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    >Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? I would say no. >It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because they object to socialism or government intervention in markets. I think this happens mainly for three reasons. 1) Some people support socialism so furiously that they genuinely think pretty much everyone who opposes socialism is part of the same group of "reactionaries", etc. 2) Some people dislike libertarians and try to smear them by calling them Nazis. 3) A certain subset of self-identified libertarians has had, historically, and continues to have now, an involvement with populist conservatism and with right-wing regimes such as Pinochet's. There is also a subset of self-identified libertarians who promote racism, a subset who lean socially conservative, etc. Some self-proclaimed libertarians oppose socialism so furiously that they view right-wing dictatorship as being a better option. Personally, I'd say that people like that are not libertarians at all, but they continue to self-identify as libertarians nonetheless.