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

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.
> I am aware of the UDNA Community mission to treat identifiers as
> first-class network primitives. It is a critical piece of the puzzle.
>
> To respect the community's time, this response answers your 4
> architectural questions directly with "show, don't tell" evidence from
> codebase.
>
> 1. Identity model (causal integrity vs. static resolution)
>
> Q: How does Glogos handle identity lifecycle concerns such as key
> rotation, recovery...
>
> In Glogos's design, identity is a temporal process anchored in a causal
> DAG.
>
> - Recovery: Glogos supports BIP39 mnemonics at the edge (implemented in `
> glo-cli <https://pypi.org/project/glo-cli/>`) to ensure controllers can
> recover their private key seed independently of any provider.
> - Rotation: Lifecycle events like key rotation are appended as
> attestations that physically point to their ancestors.
> This ensures the "heartbeat" (evidence of liveness) is built into the
> chronological graph of its actions.
>
> The Code: `examples/use-cases/key-rotation.ts
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/key-rotation.ts>`
> demonstrates how a persistent identity survives key compromise by
> maintaining a verifiable inheritance chain.
>
> Contrast: UDNA resolves the current address; Glogos provides the "causal
> pulse" that proves the legitimacy of that address.
>
> 2. Coordination vs. Transport (Substrate vs. Architecture)
>
> Q: Do you see Glogos as complementary... or as an alternative?
>
> Complementary. Glogos is the substrate of truth (the water/state), while
> UDNA is the addressing architecture (the pipe/network).
>
> The philosophy: UDNA provides the "first-class network addressing" (how to
> find). Glogos provides the "first-class cryptographic soul" (what is true).
> Without the water (truth), the pipes (network) are empty; without the
> pipes, the water cannot reach its destination.
>
> The synergy: Your reference to "identity-native networking" is a perfect
> wrapper for this "causal integrity substrate".
> Glogos is designed to work entirely offline (as shown in `
> examples/use-cases/supply-chain.ts
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/supply-chain.ts>`),
> providing the resilient state that UDNA can then route once a connection is
> established.
>
> 3. Adversarial environments (Sybil resistance)
>
> Q: How does Glogos address Sybil resistance... in public-goods?
>
> Glogos does not use central authorities (KYC). Glogos uses topology.
>
> The code: `examples/use-cases/sybil-resistance.ts
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/sybil-resistance.ts>`
> simulates an attacker creating 50 Sybil bots.
>
> The defense: The system uses a trust graph (web of trust). The "voting
> power" naturally decays with graph distance from the observer.
> An attacker can create 1 million bots, but if no honest node bridges to
> them, their mathematical influence is zero.
>
> 4. Interoperability (the envelope metaphor)
>
> Q: Is your intent for Glogos to integrate directly with existing DID / VC
> stacks...?
>
> Logical separation. Glogos does not seek to compete with `did:cel` or VCs.
> Glogos wraps them to give them "physicality".
>
> The mechanism: `examples/use-cases/standards-bridge.ts
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/standards-bridge.ts>`
> explicitly wraps W3C VCs (the "letter") inside Glogos attestations (the
> "envelope").
>
> Result: One can use UDNA for addressing and W3C VCs for semantics, while
> Glogos provides the causal integrity (time/ordering) beneath them.
>
> Conclusion
>
> If UDNA is the "nervous system" of the identity-native web, Glogos is its
> "immutable memory".
> Glogos is ready to support the UDNA mission by providing the immutable
> state layer needed to make decentralized routing truly robust.
>
> With respect,
>
> Mạnh Thành Lê
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> SHA-256("") — From nothing, truth emerges
> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/shared/artifacts/genesis-artifact.json>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 9:52 PM Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Manh
>>
>> Thank you for sharing Glogos and the thinking behind a logic substrate
>> for coordination. I appreciate the emphasis on treating commitments and
>> contributions as first-class cryptographic objects — that is an important
>> direction for decentralized systems.
>>
>> I’m writing from the perspective of building UDNA (Universal DID-Native
>> Addressing), which approaches similar coordination problems from an
>> identity-native networking angle.
>>
>> As brief context, UDNA focuses on:
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    using DIDs as first-class network addresses,
>>    -
>>
>>    integrating identity resolution, key management, and secure routing,
>>    -
>>
>>    enabling agent-to-agent coordination and communication aligned with
>>    DID Core, DIDComm, and VC ecosystems.
>>
>>
>> From reading your proposal, Glogos appears to focus on:
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    a DAG-based attestation structure anchored to a universal hash
>>    constant,
>>    -
>>
>>    a logic substrate for promises / contributions / coordination objects,
>>    -
>>
>>    cryptographic ordering and integrity independent of any specific
>>    network layer.
>>
>>
>> To better understand how you see Glogos fitting into the broader identity
>> and coordination stack, I’d be interested in your view on a few technical
>> points:
>>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    Identity model
>>
>>    How does Glogos handle identity lifecycle concerns such as key
>>    rotation, recovery, compromise, multi-device agents, and long-lived
>>    identifiers, compared to DID-based systems?
>>    2.
>>
>>    Coordination vs. transport
>>
>>    Do you see Glogos as complementary to identity-native networking
>>    layers like uDNA (which handle discovery, routing, and secure transport),
>>    or as an alternative foundational layer replacing that role?
>>    3.
>>
>>    Adversarial environment
>>
>>    Beyond immutability of attestations, how does Glogos address Sybil
>>    resistance, incentive alignment, and strategic misbehavior in public-goods
>>    or commitment-device scenarios?
>>    4.
>>
>>    Interoperability
>>
>>    Is your intent for Glogos to integrate directly with existing DID /
>>    VC stacks, or to remain logically separate as a substrate that other
>>    identity systems might optionally build on?
>>
>>
>> I think clarifying these distinctions would be valuable for the
>> community, especially as multiple efforts are exploring how to combine
>> identity, trust, and coordination in interoperable ways.
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your thoughts.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Amir Hameed
>>
>> Sirraya Labs
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 7:51 PM, Manh Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Steven,
>>>
>>> I am writing to you from the quiet evening of Ho Chi Minh City.
>>> I send this message with the sincerity of a handwritten letter, echoing
>>> the warmth I have felt from this community.
>>> The engagement from this community has been a gift of clarity—a guiding
>>> light,
>>> helping me anchor this logic into the resilient laws of nature.
>>>
>>> You are right. Glogos is a humble substrate.
>>> It is a semantic vacuum—a minimal skeleton designed to serve the rich
>>> soul of our community's work.
>>>
>>> The substrate and the soul:
>>> I view Bitcoin (thermodynamic body) and DIDs/VCs (semantic soul) as the
>>> two great ancestors of digital trust.
>>> Glogos is the inheritor—a digital script that feels as permanent as a
>>> handwritten letter anchored in sunlight.
>>> It provides the heartbeat—the rhythmic pulse of attestations that keeps
>>> an identity (did:cel) alive by turning fleeting events into immutable
>>> memory.
>>> I do not claim to know the final form of this fusion.
>>> I simply anchor to Bitcoin as a genesis witness
>>> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/shared/artifacts/genesis-artifact.json> to
>>> show my deepest respect for the physical laws that make digital truth
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> To answer your question on reputation:
>>> I believe reputation is not a number, but a verifiable pedigree.
>>> Reputation crystallizes when one becomes a necessary cryptographic
>>> ancestor to the truths that follow.
>>> That is why I built the standards bridge—to prove that Glogos can carry
>>> the "causal inheritance" of VCs through its ancestral substrate.
>>>
>>> The power of simplicity:
>>> Is Glogos too simple? I believe stripping trust to its 6-field
>>> arithmetic core is the Minimum Viable path to Resilient Digital Trust.
>>> It ensures that digital truth remains immutable for the long term,
>>> regardless of the infrastructure above it.
>>>
>>> Invitation to verify:
>>> I have implemented a verifiable heartbeat (poc) to demonstrate this
>>> pedigree in action:
>>> Standards Bridge:
>>> https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/standards-bridge.ts
>>>
>>> To experience this substrate firsthand, you can anchor a genesis zone:
>>> `pip install glo-cli && glo init --name "[your-zone-name]"`
>>>
>>> I invite you, Manu, and all colleagues to weigh in:
>>> Can we co-evolve this substrate to honor and carry the soul of the
>>> DID/VC ecosystem as a permanent anchor for Resilient Digital Trust?
>>>
>>> With warmth and respect,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *P.S. If this logic resonates, nothing would honor me more than seeing a
>>> PR sharing your Genesis Zone
>>> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/tree/main/shared/zones> in the
>>> repository.The spec is waiting for its Co-Editors.*
>>> Mạnh Thành Lê
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> SHA-256("") — From nothing, truth emerges
>>> <https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/shared/artifacts/genesis-artifact.json>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:46 AM Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-14 11:45 am, Manh Thanh Le wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Glogos is offered as a contribution to this shared vision—providing the
>>>> mathematical grounding needed for resilient digital trust.
>>>>
>>>> I welcome discussion on how this logic substrate can serve the broader
>>>> goals of the Verifiable Credentials community.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Manh,
>>>>
>>>> I'm replying here to your comments about Glogos in the did:cel thread
>>>> today, since I'm still unclear how it will be used relative to VCs and
>>>> DIDs, including did:cel, and so it seems maybe Glogos is best addressed in
>>>> its own thread.
>>>>
>>>> In that other (did:cel) thread, you gave links to the Glogos use-cases
>>>> you're working on, and I looked through several of these. I started with
>>>> this link you gave for scientific peer review:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/examples/use-cases/peer-review.ts
>>>>
>>>> I found this and other of your 22 use-cases very interesting, and
>>>> clearly there is a careful structure at play in your system. It seems to be
>>>> well thought out and implemented, at least in your examples.
>>>>
>>>> However, I'm still unclear how what you've done relates to DIDs and
>>>> VCs. I saw no evidence of either, at least on a scan of that science
>>>> use-case.
>>>>
>>>> Given that 'reputation' is of extreme importance in the peer-reviewer
>>>> case that you're showing, wouldn't the ability to handle VCs (and DIDs) be
>>>> of great importance in the interactions involved?
>>>>
>>>> If you agree, I suggest the best way to involve the multiple more exert
>>>> coding people (than me) on this list, in Glogos, would be to provide code
>>>> showing that integration.
>>>>
>>>> Or, perhaps, do some of your use-cases already show this integration?
>>>> If so, which?
>>>>
>>>> Or, perhaps, can Glogos completely replace the need for VCs and DIDs?
>>>> 🙂 In which case, you've definitely come to the right place, but
>>>> getting past Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief may take the other members
>>>> a few days. 😉
>>>>
>>>> Steven Rowat
>>>>
>>>>