- From: Manh Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 02:00:59 +0700
- To: Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+zd+J4xbbRWCUkZ=bdRuzrKyh93s66io+qEJKx+_eVvoFWdGg@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Amir,
"128 bytes." "Offline." "Zero Blockchain."
Your ZKP demo is a masterpiece of restraint. It proves we share the same
aesthetic: Minimalism is the feature.
Regarding your "Virtual Physics" challenge—you are absolutely right. L0
needs to be anchored in reality, not just simulation.
1. The Universal Common Denominator
You highlighted SHA-256. We chose it not for rigidity, but for Universality.
- It is the only "digital physics" available on everything from an 8-bit
microcontroller to a Dyson sphere.
- We anchor to `SHA-256("")` (The Empty String) because it is the only
point neutral to human bias.
2. The Cosmic Anchor (The Physics)
You asked: "How do we distinguish Real Physics from a Simulation?"
We do not trust the network. We trust Orbital Mechanics.
Our Genesis Witness is not just a digital hash; it is bound to:
- Thermodynamics: Bitcoin Block #928851 (Proof of Work).
- Astrophysics: Winter Solstice 2025.
To "simulate" a fake history for Glogos, an attacker cannot just spin up a
VM.
They would have to reverse the Bitcoin energy chain and hack Earth's orbit.
Synthesis:
- Your ZKP: The Proof.
- Glogos: The Time.
- The Universe: The Anchor.
This is the "Hardware-Attested" boundary you asked for.
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 Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 1:42 AM Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Dear Mạnh Thành Lê,*
>
> Your pivot to a *"Stateless Causal Protocol"* is a compelling response to
> the scalability trap. By placing the burden of history on the participant
> rather than the network, you've moved closer to the "Restraint" I advocate
> for.
>
> However, if we are to truly treat *L0 as Physics*, we must address two
> critical architectural hurdles that remain:
> 1. Implementation Agnosticism (Beyond the Digest)
>
> A true "Physics of Trust" cannot be wedded to a specific cryptographic
> primitive like SHA-256. If L0 is to be an immutable foundation for
> centuries, it must be *Algorithm Agnostic*.
>
> -
>
> *The Risk:* Cryptographic standards have "shelf lives" (as we saw with
> MD5 and SHA-1).
> -
>
> *The Requirement:* The "6-field arithmetic core" must treat hashing as
> a *functional slot*, not a fixed value. The lineage should be
> verifiable regardless of whether the underlying math is a classical hash or
> a post-quantum multilinear map. Truth should be a result of the
> *relation*, not the *algorithm*.
>
> 2. The "Virtual Physics" Problem (TCP/UDP Deception)
>
> You describe L0 as the "engine that ensures trust." But in the real world,
> "Physics" is mediated by the *Transport Layer (TCP/UDP)* and the *Socket
> Level*.
>
> -
>
> *The Vulnerability:* We now live in an era of *Virtualized Networks*
> (SDNs, WireGuard, Overlay Networks). These layers can "fake" the physics. A
> socket connection can be spoofed, packet timing can be manipulated, and the
> "ancestral substrate" can be simulated by a virtualized observer.
> -
>
> *The Challenge:* How does Glogos distinguish between "Real-World
> Physics" and a "Virtualized Simulation"? If the causal engine relies on the
> network stack as its witness, it inherits all the fragilities of that stack.
>
> The Minimal Defensible Boundary
>
> If we are to "co-evolve this substrate," we must ensure that the *L0/L1
> boundary* is not just a software distinction, but a *hardware-attested*
> or *entropy-bound* one.
>
> Identity-native networking cannot just trust the "heartbeat" if the heart
> itself is running inside a virtual machine that can pause, rewind, or clone
> the state.
>
> *I propose this challenge:* How can Glogos ensure *Causal Integrity* when
> the underlying network fabric (the TCP/UDP packets) is increasingly
> ephemeral and programmable?
>
> I look forward to your thoughts on how we anchor this "Digital Script" not
> just in sunlight, but in a way that is blind to the deception of the
> virtual stack.
>
> With respect,
>
> *Amir*
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 at 10:30, Manh Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Amir,
>>
>> Thank you for the sharp architectural critique.
>>
>> Your concern — that a global causal DAG acts as an engineering liability
>> and a privacy side-channel — is correct if the network is responsible for
>> synchronization and global state.
>>
>> Glogos, however, is a stateless causal protocol (layer 0). It is designed
>> to be the immutable foundation that exists beneath the interaction layer,
>> without requiring global consensus.
>>
>> 1. The engineering liability (scalability)
>> The bottleneck exists only if we treat Glogos like a ledger.
>> - Truth is a path, not a state.
>> - In trade and traceability, the burden of history is on the provenance
>> path provided by the participant making the claim, not the network
>> infrastructure.
>> - Scalability is resolved by subgraph verification: A verifier only
>> validates the specific lineage of ancestors required for a transaction. The
>> rest of the planetary event volume is irrelevant to the verification.
>>
>> 2. The privacy liability (topological leakage)
>> You are right: event chronology is sensitive metadata. Glogos addresses
>> this through architectural restraint:
>> - Implicit privacy: There is no global sync layer. Without a global
>> observer, the topology is only disclosed piecewise during specific
>> interactions.
>> - Causal masking: The structure allows for opaque refs (hashed
>> commitments), masking behavior patterns while maintaining the verifiable
>> causal link.
>>
>> 3. The defensible boundary
>> The distinction between identity infrastructure and stateful truth
>> defines our stack:
>>
>> - L2 (contextual truth): Applications. Jurisdictions, interpretations,
>> and contradiction management.
>> - L1 (identity-native addressing): UDNA, DIDs & VCs. The network protocol
>> and primitives. UDNA routes the connection, while DIDs and VCs define the
>> identity and credentials.
>> - L0 (causal physics): Glogos. Hashing, signing, referencing. The causal
>> engine that ensures trust is earned through verifiable provenance.
>>
>> As you noted, "trust is a function of identity, not location." Glogos
>> simply adds the layer where identity itself is a function of verifiable
>> history.
>>
>> Restraint is the feature. Glogos is the mechanism that allows
>> participants to remain the controllers of their own history.
>>
>> I am eager to hear if this distinction moves us closer to a shared
>> architectural understanding.
>>
>> 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 11:56 PM 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.
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2026 19:01:40 UTC