4 ms·

Here's a very concrete example: The address space in Urbit for self-controlled entities is 2^32, four billion. You can use Urbit if you don't have such an addre

by geofft 6y ago

Here's a very concrete example: The address space in Urbit for self-controlled entities is 2^32, four billion. You can use Urbit if you don't have such an address, but you're a subsidiary of whoever is giving you access to the rest of the network and you're subject to censorship/control by them. You can't develop an independent identity that someone else can route traffic to. Now, it's true that the IPv4 internet also does this. But the IPv4 internet does this because they didn't expect to run into the limit (far fewer than 2^32 IPs were originally usable), and then they started working (halfheartedly, but whatever) on IPv6. Urbit has the limit because, as a philosophical position, they believe the limit is a good thing, because there should not be more than four billion people with full human rights. https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/ > A 32-bit planet is a tool, not a toy. Like a car, it's a device for a responsible and independent adult. There aren't 4 billion cars in the world, nor 4 billion independent adults. > If you aren't an independent adult, and you don't need or even shouldn't have unconditional digital freedom (no one's 8-year-old daughter needs unconditional digital freedom), a moon from someone else's planet is fine. (Even most of today's independent adults don't complain enough about being Facebook's moons.) This was written by Yarvin in 2016, when there were over 5 billion people over the age of 18 in the world, so at least one billion adults then were unworthy of first-class citizenship in Urbit's "digital city," and even more today - not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom.

dpc_pw 6y ago
Each address ownership has to be tracked in the PKI database, so there's a big pressure to limit their number. Users don't have to use a self-owned addresses (planets). They can use moons which are delegated by the planets that issued them. The only limitation is that they are not fully independent (can't be resold, can be "canceled" by their planet) - just like an account on the website (just being run independently). > not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom. Nothing is really stopping them from using a moon issued by their school, university, a random website offering such an account, other family member or a friend etc. Right now most of the world is using identities issues by Facebook, Twitter, Github etc. and not many people seems to mind. Also most people have their devices behind a NAT and also don't mind. That's exactly what using a moon would mean. Having a planet is for more serious usage: where one wants to guarantee independence: proper identity that can't be canceled and so on. Akin to owning a root DNS name for your personal server. So 4 billion is probably even way more than we are going to need, even if world population grows x10.
- geofft 6y ago
  Yup - I think that all matches what I'm saying. It's a fundamental philosophical tenet of Urbit that there are fewer than four billion people in this world who are deserving of a "proper identity that can't be canceled." Urbit specifically exists to promote having an independent digital identity instead of being subservient to Facebook, Twitter, etc., but not everyone in the world is worthy of having that independent digital identity in Urbit's eyes, and never will be. To be clear, I'm not primarily arguing whether Urbit's view is right or wrong - it's probably clear that I mostly think Urbit's view is wrong, but the primary argument I'm making is that Urbit encodes this particular view into its technical implementation. I'm definitely not arguing, for instance, that 8-year-olds deserve the same rights as 30-year-olds - but I am arguing that it's a legitimate position to say they do, and that human society may, with good reason, come to that conclusion in the future. But Urbit has closed the door on that question. Sure, we live in a world right now where not all people have the same rights, and in particular children do not. But in a world where Urbit succeeds, there's no point even debating the question, because not all people technically can have the same rights.
  - tidrel-tabpub 6y ago
    There's nothing baked in stopping moons from being freed from their planets other than code for that hasn't been written yet. Indeed its the general consensus among the community that creating more addresses by liberating moons would be what is done if the ~4 billion limit were ever reached. There's ordinary mathematical reasons for the 4 billion limit - it makes the address space 32 bits. I've never met anybody working on Urbit that believes the notion you're putting forth.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - geofft 6y ago
      OK - could the folks working on Urbit update that page or indicate that it doesn't reflect the current project's plans/beliefs, then? A "Common objections to Urbit" page that says "We would and easily could add more than four billion planet-like entities if the need came" would be far more convincing to objectors than "Actually, there aren't four billion people in the world deserving of our project's goals." (I realize the document is from 2016 and written by someone no longer associated with the project, so maybe a disclaimer at the top linking to an entirely new version of the document would work, or something.)
selfhoster11 6y ago
It's not that those adults aren't worthy of first-class citizenship or digital freedom, it's that they wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to steward/safeguard it properly. Based on my username, it's easy to figure out where I stand with regards to independent digital ownership of content. But even I have to admit that the process of being self-hosted for anything at all brings esoteric advantages at best, is very hard work to set up and keep running for a non-technical person, and is prone to takeover by a motivated adversary unless one is constantly vigilant. It's far better to have a person in their lives who would manage their digital independence for them, assuming they are trustworthy and would do a good job at it. We already know the phenomenon of the "resident geek of the family", or their paid equivalent. Why not have a "resident digital independence keeper of the family/small community"? Surely that's already better than a mega-keeper like Facebook, who is unaccountable, not worthy of trust, and not with the user's interests in mind?

by geofft 6y ago

dpc_pw 6y ago

Each address ownership has to be tracked in the PKI database, so there's a big pressure to limit their number. Users don't have to use a self-owned addresses (planets). They can use moons which are delegated by the planets that issued them. The only limitation is that they are not fully independent (can't be resold, can be "canceled" by their planet) - just like an account on the website (just being run independently). > not to mention the 8-year-old daughters or 12-year-old daughters or 16-year-old daughters who need conditions on their digital freedom. Nothing is really stopping them from using a moon issued by their school, university, a random website offering such an account, other family member or a friend etc. Right now most of the world is using identities issues by Facebook, Twitter, Github etc. and not many people seems to mind. Also most people have their devices behind a NAT and also don't mind. That's exactly what using a moon would mean. Having a planet is for more serious usage: where one wants to guarantee independence: proper identity that can't be canceled and so on. Akin to owning a root DNS name for your personal server. So 4 billion is probably even way more than we are going to need, even if world population grows x10.

geofft 6y ago
Yup - I think that all matches what I'm saying. It's a fundamental philosophical tenet of Urbit that there are fewer than four billion people in this world who are deserving of a "proper identity that can't be canceled." Urbit specifically exists to promote having an independent digital identity instead of being subservient to Facebook, Twitter, etc., but not everyone in the world is worthy of having that independent digital identity in Urbit's eyes, and never will be. To be clear, I'm not primarily arguing whether Urbit's view is right or wrong - it's probably clear that I mostly think Urbit's view is wrong, but the primary argument I'm making is that Urbit encodes this particular view into its technical implementation. I'm definitely not arguing, for instance, that 8-year-olds deserve the same rights as 30-year-olds - but I am arguing that it's a legitimate position to say they do, and that human society may, with good reason, come to that conclusion in the future. But Urbit has closed the door on that question. Sure, we live in a world right now where not all people have the same rights, and in particular children do not. But in a world where Urbit succeeds, there's no point even debating the question, because not all people technically can have the same rights.
- tidrel-tabpub 6y ago
  There's nothing baked in stopping moons from being freed from their planets other than code for that hasn't been written yet. Indeed its the general consensus among the community that creating more addresses by liberating moons would be what is done if the ~4 billion limit were ever reached. There's ordinary mathematical reasons for the 4 billion limit - it makes the address space 32 bits. I've never met anybody working on Urbit that believes the notion you're putting forth.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - geofft 6y ago
    OK - could the folks working on Urbit update that page or indicate that it doesn't reflect the current project's plans/beliefs, then? A "Common objections to Urbit" page that says "We would and easily could add more than four billion planet-like entities if the need came" would be far more convincing to objectors than "Actually, there aren't four billion people in the world deserving of our project's goals." (I realize the document is from 2016 and written by someone no longer associated with the project, so maybe a disclaimer at the top linking to an entirely new version of the document would work, or something.)

selfhoster11 6y ago

It's not that those adults aren't worthy of first-class citizenship or digital freedom, it's that they wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to steward/safeguard it properly. Based on my username, it's easy to figure out where I stand with regards to independent digital ownership of content. But even I have to admit that the process of being self-hosted for anything at all brings esoteric advantages at best, is very hard work to set up and keep running for a non-technical person, and is prone to takeover by a motivated adversary unless one is constantly vigilant. It's far better to have a person in their lives who would manage their digital independence for them, assuming they are trustworthy and would do a good job at it. We already know the phenomenon of the "resident geek of the family", or their paid equivalent. Why not have a "resident digital independence keeper of the family/small community"? Surely that's already better than a mega-keeper like Facebook, who is unaccountable, not worthy of trust, and not with the user's interests in mind?