Philip Monk

The galactic Senate can make decisions about the Azimuth layer, so it makes sense where possible to keep that all within the same layer. Azimuth doesn't really depend on Urbit...

There are several indexes like that, and I'll bet we could remove several of them. Probably worth doing at some point. On Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 20:28 Adam Bliss ***@***.***>...

Interesting approach. This isn't compatible with how we currently number planets (ie the planets under a star are not in a single block), but they could have been numbered like...

Renumbering would be difficult, but easier with this approach than others because most owners have blocks of address space that would happen to line up with the new numbering system....

You can tell a planet's original star by looking at its LSB, so the stars under eg ~marzod (0x0100) are 0x10100, 0x20100, 0x30100, etc. Yeah, you could do it as...

As far as I'm aware, this is the only part of the code that explicitly disallows spawning them: https://github.com/urbit/azimuth/blob/1cd367e2e9c3f5294e9d54b9bd916d1ee984a494/contracts/Ecliptic.sol#L358-L359 What I don't know is whether the rest of the flow...

That's probably true. Of course, for Urbit to support these there may be changes required in the %jael vane as well. That's easier, though.

@isaykatsman The 100 NMR bounty is for all of the issues, however I'm open to splitting that up into specific parts of it. Can you suggest a reasonable division of...

For our use it would still be nice, since we have the user sign a longer hex string, but it's still somewhat legible as a hex string (mainly, you can...

Took a brief look at my version of this. You can get a trace with commands `|ames-sift ~bitpyx-dildus` and `|ames-verb %msg` (turn off with `|ames-verb`). I get one that looks...