@@ 98,3 98,46 @@ w.r.t. reality, so oracle problem.
The operation graph can invoke arbitrary programs as provided by the metaprogram, the metaprogram also
provides compatible data (modulo context specific guarantees) via the places.
+
+Notes
+-----
+
+Objects are hashes. Properties are names. Properties can be related logically and given causality.
+That is not completely correct, I suppose objects are just any height 0 cxp (so just netstrings).
+
+In order to associate an object with many properties we use an OP-graph which is itself a property of
+the associated data, namely; the adjacencies between elements in the list of objects (hashes) and list
+of properties (names / references).
+
+Mostly this involves answering queries from the front end about what kinds of properties it has access
+to for the current object being displayed in the interface.
+
+The fundamental TOP-graph (trust object property graph) has trust thresholds associated with
+edges, this kind of thing is necessary but still thinking about it, anyway the core trusted definitions
+will include the interface property definitions (because you must be able to trust that your interface
+is telling you the truth about your data and that no code runs without permission).
+
+The immutable objects are associated mutably with the properties but we try to converge on property
+definitions so that we can achieve confluence. Metatheory of progress is clarity. Information sources
+which contribute improvenents to clarity somewhat reliably are more trustworthy and therefore treated
+with higher priority. For this reason: When convergence happens it can be assumed to be censorship
+resistant in the same way as mathematical results. Therefore we can safely (in the societal sense)
+rely on anonymity to protect vulnerable parties with interesting perspectives. This motivates peers
+to play mixnets; or use broadcasts based on (zk)proofs-of-membership rather than proofs-of-identity.
+
+Privacy must always be considered in relation to the censorship resistance properties because privacy
+predicated on a censor broadcast is equivalent to just having the censor (since the private party has
+no recourse when censored except to give up anonymity). Due to our aim of achieving confluence we will
+depend on common vocabularies and therefore legitimate improvements to definitions will probably be
+censorship resistant enough to motivate anonymity (since peers benefit from the information they will
+share it with those they trust).
+
+Different representations (of the confluent concepts) are unavoidable for the foreseeable future.
+Therefore we must rely on logic and probability theory to make sense of these things. However; in
+order for these webs of knowledge to remain convincing, the individual must remain sovereign and
+have the benefit of the doubt. That way we continuously reorient the viewpoints to cover different
+cases of perspective mismatch (canonical/most trustworthy presentation vs some humans cognition).
+
+Clearly whatever works will be used and therefore we can assume that those who understand will be
+able to explain and somehow keep the knowledge alive. Good luck.
+