Re: Introduction: Glogos - logic layer 0 for truth and coordination

This video is a demonstration of how we use Zero Knowledge Proof with web
technologies without even needing blockchain, it works fully offline and
client side, it does real crypto and that too on home pc. Minimal is always
best, it need just prover and verifier and only 128 bytes of proof moves
across the network

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 08:56, Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the detailed explanation and for grounding it in code — I
> appreciate the rigor and the spirit of collaboration.
>
>
> Let me share a concern that sits at the architectural level rather than
> implementation detail.
>
>
> The strong temporal / causal framing (global or even large-scale identity
> DAGs) introduces two fundamental bottlenecks:
>
>
> 1. Engineering & scalability
>
>
> When event volume becomes large (key rotations, attestations,
> interactions, delegations, revocations, etc.), maintaining and traversing a
> causal DAG becomes:
>
>
>    -
>
>    computationally expensive,
>    -
>
>    storage heavy,
>    -
>
>    synchronization sensitive,
>    -
>
>    and operationally complex in adversarial and intermittent-connectivity
>    environments.
>
>
> At planetary scale, this quickly becomes an engineering liability rather
> than a strength.
>
>
> 2. Privacy & domain boundaries
>
>
> In sensitive domains (finance, healthcare, legal identity):
>
>
>    -
>
>    event chronology itself is sensitive metadata,
>    -
>
>    graph structure leaks behavioral patterns,
>    -
>
>    correlation becomes unavoidable over time.
>
>
> Even if encrypted, the existence, ordering, and linkage of events form a
> powerful side-channel.
>
>
> Not everything should become part of a globally observable or
> synchronizable structure.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> On “truth” and where it should live
>
>
> I would argue that truth cannot be fully externalized into a network
> structure.
>
>
> Truth in real systems has:
>
>
>    -
>
>    partial observability,
>    -
>
>    delays,
>    -
>
>    reversals,
>    -
>
>    jurisdictional boundaries,
>    -
>
>    subjective interpretations,
>    -
>
>    and legitimate contradictions.
>
>
> Reducing this into a single causal graph risks over-formalizing something
> that is inherently contextual.
>
>
> From a pragmatic standpoint:
>
>
> the strongest root of truth should remain with the user (or the local
> authority they choose), not with the network.
>
>
> The network should verify claims, not attempt to become the historical
> substrate of reality.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> On DIDs and causal attestation
>
>
> If we perform an ablation study:
>
>
>    -
>
>    DIDs + signatures already provide:
>
>    -
>
>       cryptographic continuity,
>       -
>
>       key rotation,
>       -
>
>       recovery,
>       -
>
>       delegation,
>       -
>
>       and verifiable causal chains when needed.
>
>
>
> Causality can be expressed locally and selectively, without enforcing a
> globally accumulated structure.
>
>
> In other words:
>
>
> causal proof ≠ global causal memory.
>
>
> Selective disclosure + signed statements already cover most real-world
> requirements with far better privacy and scalability properties.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A pragmatic boundary
>
>
> So my current view is:
>
>
>    -
>
>    Identity systems should be:
>
>    -
>
>       minimal,
>       -
>
>       privacy-preserving by default,
>       -
>
>       user-anchored,
>       -
>
>       and selectively composable.
>
>
>
> Not every truth needs to become network truth.
>
> Not every event needs to become global history.
>
>
> At planetary scale, restraint is a feature, not a limitation.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> That said, I do see strong alignment in the goal of identity-native
> networking and in the desire to remove centralized trust anchors. My
> position is simply that:
>
>
> the network should route identities,
>
> applications should manage truth,
>
> and users should remain the ultimate custodians of their own history.
>
>
> I’m very open to continuing this discussion — especially around where the
> minimal, defensible boundary between identity infrastructure and stateful
> truth systems should lie.
>
>
> With respect,
>
> Amir
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 9:53 PM, Manh Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Amir,
>>
>> Thank you for the warm welcome and the bridge you are building with UDNA