@james this might be slightly off topic, but since you confirmed that all worlds will be wrapped i have a question that really bothers me.
Will worlds still have a minimum point then? will there be a point where you cant go through, or can you technically dig through the world?
The wrapping is artificial- the world is still technically flat, but when you reach the end coordinates it connects to the other side of the map. Some math is involved.
You will not be able to dig through the core of a planet. You will still encounter bedrock. If you manage to bypass this, you will fall out of world.
As @Havok40k describes.
I do have some ideas for alternative world configurations that I want to experiment with but these will not be explored until after 1.0.
The question regarding pumpstations is, how should the animation of sinking sea level work out?
If you consider sourceblocks, this I relate to blocky movement along the world grid.
If one block of water sinks downwards through a canal, the sea level diminished for the amount of one block. There, problem. And how fast is water supposed to run through a hole? Fluent behaviour? Or fair and “blocky” movement?
Or, it Is like this - the sourceblocks actually are no blocks, but rather huge amount of little particles, yet no pixels, but dropsydopsy spots. At least visible at the surface. Aligned to a finer wobblegrid. Allowing waves and things. Hhhhhhm? Hm. Plsplsplsplspleace?Pleasyplease?
Having no source blocks for water and lava would be really cool. You would have to make piping for waterfalls and fountains so it would be all the more impressive, you would have more control over what flows where, and possibly even making a hydroelectric dam 
I’m not sure how well this would do on the optimization side of things, since I can imagine this getting very laggy for large bodies of water.
Because in the current C++ Build the fluid-calculation is missing i think it could be good to revive this topic.
@james / @ben: Is this still a planed (this statement is now over 1 year old) or will you migrate the old system to the new build in a later patch ?
At the moment we’re re-adding the same fluid logic to the C++ build. This doesn’t mean it’s final. Rather it’s simpler to port the current solution than attempt to create something new during the porting process.
But the conversation is still open. I don’t think it’s something we’ve discussed much recently internally. So community opinions and ideas are still welcome.
The main question how can we make fluids fun and interesting without making them an awesome griefing weapon.
? Fluids can’t flow into beacons ?
? Fluids can only be placed in beacons ?
? Fluids can’t be placed but must be diverted from their source ?
No perfect solution at the moment.
Are you still working with the idea of fixed capacity? Cause that would probably solve most of the issues really.
Dunno, but I think that those three rules combined would make a perfect solution 
This would be pity in my opinion because if i integrate a waterfall or a river in my beacon it would block it out.
If fluids are not placeable and need to be channeled to the target the griefing risk will be much lower.
As said before, if everything need to be channeled to the target and can’t be “created” this would be a good solution against crefing and a benefit for a more complex gameplay like described in my first post in this topic. Water is a worthy resource in this world (farming, fishing or as coolant for different machinery) and if water could used in a similar way this would add a lot of “creativity” to this game. It would also require a better organization of you buildings (hide pipes, don’t waste water, how to distribute water).
Oh no please not. There are a lot of reasons why one should like to have fluids flow through your beacons.
I´d interpret “Fluids can´t flow into beacons” as "If someone places fluids next to your beacon it can´t flow inside while fluids that were already there when you placed the beacon (aka. natural rivers, lakes, etc.) would stay.
Not sure this differentiation is possible. This would add a massive amount of computation to the logic (need to save if a block is natural or not and differentiation everything that is not natural).
What if i have radioactive sewage from my generators that need be discharged ?
That would still mean though that if you want a waterfall to flow from your fyilng island and down to your dessert city below you would need to cover the whole waterfall in beacons.
Don’t forget that the regen will return any changes outside of your beacon. So it would likely make beacon placement more important: 1. river already flowing through beacon or 2. source block already within your beacon.
Good to keep in mind as we try to find where to make “home”.
No differentiation needed, the beacon could ignore water when it is placed and only react to new sources.
I think that´s quite fair, if you want an artificial waterfall of that size you should have to spend a lot of plots on it.
This is correct. Every complex life-form on this planet needs water and even if there might be other life-forms on other planets that don’t rely on water (maybe some cool creatures for uninhabitable and hard worlds → stone/sand creatures) it would be cool if water would be an active resource and not only a “visual” gimmig.
Maybe this could also be a good balance for super hard worlds that it’s nearly impossible build a settlement because there is only extreme few water and if need to “stay” on this worlds you need to find that water (like the search of water on mars).
Where water is, is life.
I’d rather see a waterfall that flows into a beacon than one that stops in the air and maybe even flows down on the sides of the beacon. Because nobody will use that many plots on a decent waterfall.
And why should that take a lot of plots anyway? You didn’t terraform anything. So there is nothing to be beaconed. (Assuming a waterfall from a flying island down onto earth or another island)
There really is no reason to force someone to use so many plots just to make the waterfall look realistic (and not let it stop midair).
I’m not sure on a solution to this either, however I do like the idea of only being able to divert water from the source…
With that, do you mean pipes or just digging trenches and seeing how far the water flows before it tapers off (or will it flow indefinitely until the area to fill is level?
Hmm, the flowing water mechanic raises more questions as well… if you divert water and then place a beacon over the divert so it’s effectively ‘permanent’… and that diverted water still continues to flow outside of the beacon… what happens to world regen? Would the water be in a constant state of flux and disappear and reappear all the time?
I think any solution that you opt for would need to take the prospect any future farming mechanic into consideration as well. Maybe have a bucket that can transport water, but if that water is placed directly onto the ground, it dissolves into the ground and does not create a new flowing water source. You could have it so that water can still be transferred from bucket to barrel / irrigation system though, to feed crops.
Regarding water flowing into beacons … I’m actually in favour of it, purely due to the realism factor. Although it is a potential avenue to griefing, I think the possibility of it occurring would be reduced (as others have suggested), due to limitations on water flow and the inability to place water source blocks.
Hypothetically, I think it is safe to allow water to flow from a source into a beacon (as mentioned above) provided that the source block can be somehow “taped” by the beacon owner. What I mean by this is the beacon owner must some how locate and claim the water source block or blocks that are flowing into their beacon. If this is a natural spring or river, that involves locating all source blocks that then directly flow through the beacon, selecting them, and some how tying them to the players beacon permissions. This could work similar to the beacon plotting mechanism where holding the beacon plotter also shows taped water sources, but otherwise leaves behind nothing that would be regenerated. That way, griefers can not some how divert water from rivers or pipes into another players space because those source blocks are not taped by the owner of the beacon.