Thanks for your point of view. I really appreciate the time and effort to present your view of the Urbit ecosystem and the value it provides.

As I said, I really like the idea of decentralized network services[0].

I understand the motivation WRT a mechanism that will discourage spam and other garbage. And while I mostly focused on Urbit's similarities to a pyramid scheme, that's not really my primary concern. Rather it's the hierarchical nature of Urbit that seems more problematic to me, with the tiered rent-seeking is another, less important aspect (although still negative, despite the innocent claims of spam prevention) of it.

What's more, I'd want to use the technology for my own (admittedly narrow) purposes, without others having the power to shut me down or blackball me -- a possibility that a hierarchical model doesn't preclude.

As for the politics/philosophy of Urbit's creator, that's not so important to me as long as I can use the technology the way I wish.

That said, there are aspects which seem troubling, not least of which is that the founder, despite his apparent departure from the scene, still owns a significant portion of the hierarchy's top level, potentially giving him significant power over the governance of the Urbit universe. Which may or may not be an issue, but a flat, fully peered model avoids that issue completely.

>Urbit’s design allows network updates to automatically get picked up across the entire network. Users control and own all of their data. It’s p2p by default and that complexity is invisible to users. It’s backwards compatible, runs on unix in a vm, but could run on its own custom hardware in the future.

>It could allow people to have their own computing environment where they can send things like photos directly to others without a middleman like FB. The design means that software that runs now should run in ten years.

Aside from automatic network updates (a useful feature indeed), I wonder what value Urbit has over a platform such as Diaspora[1], which, assuming I run my own pod (a similar situation to Urbit) provides me with full control over my data, as well as federation services and strong controls over the content I allow into my environment.

The Diaspora model is completely free (both libre and gratis), doesn't have a hierarchical structure and provides a pretty good UX.

Please understand that I'm not rejecting Urbit, I just don't really see the value of it over other platforms that provide similar services without financial entanglements or potential issues with those "higher up" in a hierarchy.

As a technical person, the Urbit technology itself is pretty cool, but given its implementation and structure, it's difficult to see it gaining wide acceptance.

Whereas (using my previous example) if/when Diaspora is packaged in a way that most folks can easily install/configure it, it's likely to see much broader acceptance.

I may well play with Urbit a bit more, but AFAICT, its utility is limited using it as a "comet" rather than purchasing an ID.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270070

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

Edit: Fixed incorrect usage of it's (should be and now is, 'its').