Thanks for the heads-up. Although I'd like to evaluate the technical merits of this project independently of the political ideology of the people behind it, knowing this I won't be sending any money their way for "planets" or such, which I might otherwise have done. Not one cent.
I'm not going to ask you for a citation about that (as I don't know what part of Urbit you imagine embodies the political philosophy that you are in disagreement with, and I don't imagine that I want to know) but I will let you know that Curtis Yarvin has nothing to do with the Urbit project anymore, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
It's been pointed out to you elsewhere in the thread that his ideas of hierarchical, feudal society are writ large in the network organisation. Plus the comments he made about address sizes etc.
I guess it's in your interest not to see/admit this, but it's pretty fundamental to the whole thing as far as I can tell.
My understanding of the design is that scarcity and hierarchy facilitates a scalable network, with respect to reputation and spam prevention. If the cost of an identity is non-zero and non-negligible, and the supply of permanent identities is gated through individuals (who don't want to be associated with bad actors, lest their own reputation as good actors become negatively affected), then aren't the actors all incentivized to maintain a collective reputation, positively?
The definition of "feudal" that I found when I went looking for it depends on the definition of feudalism, but also on subjective measures like "outdated" or "old-fashioned."
If you want to argue that scarcity is an outdated mode of thinking, then we can have a different conversation, and I think one that is perhaps not suited for this thread. But perhaps we can agree that if a fixed supply of 4.3 billion Urbit planets ever represents a true scarcity, we should be having a different conversation altogether, as it will have become a runaway success, surpassing far above either yours or my own expectations for it?
