Am I correct in understanding that @urbit has a maximum of ~4 billion distinct identities (stars), i.e., less than the current global population? This seems like a design choice with political implications.
-
-
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @urbit1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
-
Replying to @matildepark_ @urbit
Wow. "There aren't ... 4 billion independent adults" ... "Even most of today's independent adults don't complain enough about being Facebook's moons" ... "Limiting the supply of anything doesn't create a shortage. It sets a price." (The latter seems prima facie false?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It seems very weird—some parts of the site talk about booting up an instance in 2116. In this design choice (which seems immutable) the assumption is that the population of independent adults will never be more than 4 billion? (Even when all the children grow up?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Current demographic estimates suggest that population over eighteen is ~5 billion—so either some people don't count as adults, or
@urbit expects to grow no faster than the population contracts? What am I missing here?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @matildepark_
The answer on the site should be updated. It’s entirely possible to subdivide the 2^64 moons such that some behave like planets. It’d be a pretty easy change if we ever hit the 2^32 limit — which is incredibly far away.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Even for pretty much every cloud service.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.