Comment by dpc_pw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpc_pw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

Nobody is truly independent, and has never been. It may seem offensive to the Western notions of liberty, but the evidence is clear and Urbit is merely acknowledging the reality of the situation.

- The average people are dependent on the whims of the voting majority (democracy), or the whims of their leader (monarchy/totalitarianism)

- In addition, the average person chooses to do or avoid doing certain things, to maintain social conformity and avoid ostracism.

- The upper classes and elites are dependent on the whims of those above them in the power structure of the country

- The ruling class depends on the loyalty of those below them, so their conduct and decisions must be naturally shaped by those who they depend on to stay in power (see CGP Grey's "The Rules for Rulers", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)

- On an international level, this applies correspondingly. Weaker countries are at the mercy of their superiors, co-equal countries must not go too far in violating norms lest they get called out on it by peers, superpowers are dependent on their fellow superpowers not punishing them and on their client nations not to rebel.

I do agree that environments like Urbit should make it easy and cheap to become independent, and free to change your "landlord", but that's a mere implementation detail.

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.

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.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com