7 ms·

https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/#planet https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/#planet > Urbit doesn't have enough planets for eve

https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/#planet https://urbit.org/blog/common-objections-to-urbit/#planet > Urbit doesn't have enough planets for every human > 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. WTF!? What is their definition of "independent adult" !? (Is it car ownership ?!?) This is IPv4 all over again...

pjc50 6y ago
Fairly sure there's more than 4bn legal adults in the world, so this is some weird supremacist thing where """inferior""" people are deliberately excluded.
curtainsforus 6y ago
I mean, whatever number they pick would have problems. The more planets there are, the easier (more economically viable) it is for spammers/fraudsters/trolls to buy new planets when the old ones get flagged/banned from everywhere. A big part of the professed point of urbit's limited address space is to add an incentive to be polite on social networks through this scarcity, so having more planets than stars in the sky wouldn't make sense. If they had picked e.g. 10 billion, then the population would still eventually (all going well) rise above that. If they had picked some number so large there would never be that many humans (or if there were, we'd need new networking solutions anyway), it would defeat the point of identity scarcity. And the whole 'disincentivizing trolling' idea had better damn work during the early phases of the network, when adoption is most important, or you risk the whole thing burning when it didn't need to. The motivations are, of course, still suspect.

pjc50 6y ago

Fairly sure there's more than 4bn legal adults in the world, so this is some weird supremacist thing where """inferior""" people are deliberately excluded.

curtainsforus 6y ago

I mean, whatever number they pick would have problems. The more planets there are, the easier (more economically viable) it is for spammers/fraudsters/trolls to buy new planets when the old ones get flagged/banned from everywhere. A big part of the professed point of urbit's limited address space is to add an incentive to be polite on social networks through this scarcity, so having more planets than stars in the sky wouldn't make sense. If they had picked e.g. 10 billion, then the population would still eventually (all going well) rise above that. If they had picked some number so large there would never be that many humans (or if there were, we'd need new networking solutions anyway), it would defeat the point of identity scarcity. And the whole 'disincentivizing trolling' idea had better damn work during the early phases of the network, when adoption is most important, or you risk the whole thing burning when it didn't need to. The motivations are, of course, still suspect.