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

For additional context a Dacument serves the role of a ”Resource” specified
here:

https://github.com/z-base/z-base/blob/main/docs/specifications/CONCEPT.md


la 24.1.2026 klo 9.00 ip. Jori Lehtinen <lehtinenjori03@gmail.com>
kirjoitti:

> Sorry to jump in like an idiot.
>
>
> I’d like to understand Glogos a bit better, what problem it actually
> solves, and where exactly it sits in the stack.
>
>
> In a prior thread I remember someone mentioning that it is about giving
> actual resources/files properties like decentralization, censorship
> resistance, etc.
>
>
> Does Glogos share any properties with a model like this?
>
> https://github.com/z-base/dacument
>
>
> This is part of a project I’m working on, where one goal is to make client
> state authoritative through a verifiable CRDT state model, allowing strict
> end-to-end encryption.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jori Lehtinen
>
>
> la 24.1.2026 klo 8.44 ip. Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> kirjoitti:
>
>> *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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>