[krick]

I definitely was thinking about something like this, but not exactly this. I mean, yeah, the only way to save ourselves from damnation is to finally announce "enough of 70's!" and rewrite everything from scratch, so the idea is dear to me, but that actual implementation of the idea is… maybe "weird" is the right word. I'll continue reading, but I already have a feeling that after I'll get myself completely familiar with it, I will hope it will not succeed.

[jacquesm]

I hope it will succeed but that it won't be the only thing that will succeed and that some will take inspiration from it to build something even better. Challenging the status quo as such is a useful property and showing that you can in fact reboot is useful as well.

That said, the more I read about it (a couple of hours so far) the more I'm thinking it will not succeed because of some of the weirder philosophical decisions that have already been cast in stone.

It's basically a variation on the 'landgrab' theme. Think bitcoin or the domain name system with half the space grabbed up by the ruling corporation, with an arbitrary 'ingroup' and a very large 'outgroup'.

You'd think that by now the whole point the web rammed home with its unbridled success is that open is better but I guess the mobile walled gardens have whetted the appetite of future wannabe corporate overlords.

Anyway, I still wish them best of luck, that's an economic move on my part, it costs nothing and I suspect they are self limiting enough that it will not achieve the world domination they are dreaming of. See also: the singularity.

[urbit]

I prefer to think of it as: you can be "free as in beer" or "free as in speech," but not both. Sith Lord Zuck has set you free as in beer, but not in speech. Urbit will set you free as in speech, but not as in beer.

The difference is simply that while there are a limited number of Urbit identities (or at least memorable identities, ie, 32-bit "destroyers") in the world, and therefore they can't possibly be made free as in beer, neither I nor my evil minions have any practical power over a destroyer once we create it.

Moreover, if you genuinely think of any individual or organization involved with Urbit as evil, there are plenty of independent carrier-holders you can get a destroyer from. (~del, for instance, will ship destroyers when we do, I think. He's some guy in Rochester whom I don't know from Adam. So, we'll let him serve the first 16 million people who want to escape from our evil dictatorship.)

Yes, by default the normal way to get onto Urbit will feel like the normal way to get onto Facebook. However, even if you are initially issued and hosted by us, you can move your image at any time to any other host, or to your own machine. Currently there's no way to stop using your issuing carrier for network services, such as firewall hole punching, but this is obviously a 1.0 feature. By design, there is no sort of leverage you can't escape from.

So Urbit strikes a sort of balance between governed and ungoverned networks. The limited address space will hopefully make it economically impractical to abuse the network for profit - a spammer is always a Sybil attacker. But as a destroyer you are not ruled by any master you can't easily escape from. The only thing you can't escape is your own reputation. Which you shouldn't be able to escape from.

We should probably highlight this difference a little more in the doc...

[yebyen]

The random guy from Rochester here (~del)

I will hock destroyers, although I don't know if I can sell them, for reasons I can't go into. Also offering Yachts, to anyone who thinks that a destroyer is just too militaristic.

I can also confirm, don't know Curtis from Adam.