top | item 47211654

(no title)

a-dub | 14 hours ago

if you have pre-execution enforcement, what's the point of the verification protocol? the ability to apply stricter covenants to past action logs after the fact? i'm not sure i follow the use-case for that.

discuss

order

nobulexdev|14 hours ago

Good question.

The Enforcement and verification serve for a different audience.

Enforcement will protect you as it stops your agent from doing something it shouldn't. Verification protects everyone else, as it lets a third party independently confirm that the enforcement actually happened, without trusting you. You say "my agent followed the rules," while the regulator says "prove it." The hash-chained logs and signed covenants are the proof. Without verification, it's just your word.

a-dub|13 hours ago

makes sense. the core modules that i looked at look pretty good. (action-log, verifier, composability, dsl and parser).

all the kitchen sink stuff makes it pretty intense though. have you considered separating out just the core execution, logging and verification components? stuff like c2pa seems super cool, but maybe a second layer for application type things like that so that the core consensus stuff can be inspected easily? one goal for a system like this is easy auditability of the system itself.