Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum • Hacker News Board

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#151

Post by munin » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #146

munin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you know, the Moldbug persona is separate from the persona that develops Urbit!

What the heck is that supposed to mean? "Persona?" Fine, Curtis Yarvin has said that he only reads old books.

It was a joke, when Curtis was dis-invited from speaking at a conference due to writings he made as Moldbug, the argument he made was that the Moldbug persona and the Urbit developer Curtis Yarvin are separate so there was no problem or worry about Curtis saying wacky racist things during his presentation about Urbit, because the person that says wacky racist things was Moldbug, who was not invited, therefore would not be coming.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#152

Post by throwaway982736 » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

occultist_throw wrote: post #149

Fang_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full disclaimer: I recently started working for Urbit, but have been involved in its community for about a year and a half now. It pains me to see people paint the project and its people in this light. I don't know if I'm taking the bait here or playing into your cards or whatever, but I want to try and clear some things up. > He is "The Master", and you are just too stupid to understand his pure clear thought. Not r…

> It pains me to see people paint the project and its people in this light. I don't know if I'm taking the bait here or playing into your cards or whatever, but I want to try and clear some things up. Indeed not. I looked at Urbit as a way to do untrusted computation spread across multiple nodes. Think of a distributed Lambda not dissimilar to that of IPFS, but for computation. I tried to give it a fair shake. Howeve…

"So it's not true that Tlon can't just say $user's compute node is hereby expelled?"

Correct, this is untrue.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#153

Post by Nition » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #111

Nition wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they given a reason as to why it's not larger than 32-bit?

Yes, and it's been quoted and referred to multiple times in this discussion thread.

What I meant was, is there a reason to keep it low beyond "bigger isn't necessary"? Like a performance reason for instance, or an address is like a URL so shorter is easier to remember, or something like that.

The reason I ask is if there's a good reason that a bigger address space would be worse in some way, then "bigger isn't necessary" might be a decent argument, but if there's no good reason not to make it bigger, then it's not such a good argument.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#154

Post by vmchale » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 12:59 AM UTC

Munksgaard wrote: post #94

pcmonk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not all of the last 30 odd years of systems and programming research was pointless. Indeed, which is why it's a shame our primary server OSes (Unix-likes) can't incorporate them. Urbit can. As for what are the approaches different, there have been many words spilled over that, but here's a few examples to wit, most of which exist in one or two other systems, but aren't widely used: - All events are transactions, do…

I'm curious: What's the advantage of ditching Hindley-Milner?

None whatsoever. Hindley-Milner is in fact used widely in language design because of its relatively good error messages (as well as ease of implementation). Also it really doesn't have much to do with category theory.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#155

Post by vmchale » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 1:08 AM UTC

pcmonk wrote: post #83

tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I get that. So I guess my question is: in what ways justifying new terminology are the approaches taken by Urbit different? And whether or not they're different enough from prior art to merit obscure new terms, are those differences worthwhile, or are they different for the sake of being different? Because not all of the last 30 odd years of systems and programming research was pointless.

> not all of the last 30 odd years of systems and programming research was pointless. Indeed, which is why it's a shame our primary server OSes (Unix-likes) can't incorporate them. Urbit can. As for what are the approaches different, there have been many words spilled over that, but here's a few examples to wit, most of which exist in one or two other systems, but aren't widely used: - All events are transactions, do…

>Sane indentation for a functional language, known as "backstep"

This is A) not an impressive problem to solve, and B) not actually a problem in Haskell or Elm.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#156

Post by occultist_throw » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:20 AM UTC

pcmonk wrote: post #83

tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I get that. So I guess my question is: in what ways justifying new terminology are the approaches taken by Urbit different? And whether or not they're different enough from prior art to merit obscure new terms, are those differences worthwhile, or are they different for the sake of being different? Because not all of the last 30 odd years of systems and programming research was pointless.

> not all of the last 30 odd years of systems and programming research was pointless. Indeed, which is why it's a shame our primary server OSes (Unix-likes) can't incorporate them. Urbit can. As for what are the approaches different, there have been many words spilled over that, but here's a few examples to wit, most of which exist in one or two other systems, but aren't widely used: - All events are transactions, do…

> Persistent connections with exactly-once messaging. Disconnection is just seen as long latency.

Bullshit.

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf

Unless you and Yarvin really think there's a valid answer to the 2 Generals problem... Im sure there's a Fields medal in there if you do.

"Every major message queue in existence which provides any guarantees will market itself as at-least-once delivery. If it claims exactly-once, it’s because they are lying to your face in hopes that you will buy it or they themselves do not understand distributed systems. Either way, it’s not a good indicator."

~ http://bravenewgeek.com/you-cannot-have-exactly-once-deliver...

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#157

Post by adiabatty » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 4:00 AM UTC

Nition wrote: post #153

ubernostrum wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's been quoted and referred to multiple times in this discussion thread.

What I meant was, is there a reason to keep it low beyond "bigger isn't necessary"? Like a performance reason for instance, or an address is like a URL so shorter is easier to remember, or something like that. The reason I ask is if there's a good reason that a bigger address space would be worse in some way, then "bigger isn't necessary" might be a decent argument, but if there's no good reason not to make it bigger…

While planet names would get harder to remember if they were longer (48 bits and six syllables instead of 32 bits and four syllables), the main reason they want the address space to be somewhat scarce is to make spam economically infeasible.

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#158

Post by dang » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

archagon wrote: post #109

frou_dh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that your social grandstanding quota met for today, or are you in search of more opportunities?

Are you seriously suggesting that I posted the comment out of a desire to beat my chest, and not from sheer disgust at the ideas that Urbit's chief and backers espouse? Your words are cruel, petty, and unwarranted.

Would you please not engage in predictable flamewars and well-worn controversies on HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#159

Post by dang » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

frou_dh wrote: post #105

archagon wrote: post #91

Huh, apparently the creator[1] of Urbit is one of the original folks behind the very gross dark enlightenment school of thought, and also associated with Peter Thiel through his startup. Well, that saps my interest in the project rather quickly. I'm sure there will be alternatives from people whose principles I'd actually be happy to support. I strongly believe in voting with my attention and/or money against ideals…

Is that your social grandstanding quota met for today, or are you in search of more opportunities?

We ban accounts that attack others this way, so please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bootstrapping Urbit from Ethereum

#160

Post by archagon » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:30 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #158

archagon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously suggesting that I posted the comment out of a desire to beat my chest, and not from sheer disgust at the ideas that Urbit's chief and backers espouse? Your words are cruel, petty, and unwarranted.

Would you please not engage in predictable flamewars and well-worn controversies on HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Not to rock the boat, but to what extent is saying "this guy is a toxic white supremacist and we should not support him" permitted? Because I was the first person to even bring it up in the thread, and leaving it unsaid would have been, I think, unconscionable and awkward. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible in my statement, keeping it brief and slinging no personal attacks. My intent was not to start any flame wars; I just think it's critical that we, as a community, don't sweep such uncomfortable facts under the rug. (And frankly, I don't even know which controversies on HN are well-worn. This is the first I've seen of Yarvin in any prominent posting since I got here.)