DEV Community: MyShape-Protocol

CPS-0001 v1.0-RC1: 30-Day Community Review is Open

MyShape-Protocol — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:41:50 +0000

We are thrilled to announce the public release of CPS-0001 v1.0-RC1, a proposed standard for cryptographically verifying continuity over time.

Today, we are opening a 30-day community review period and invite your critical feedback and interoperability attempts.

The Core Problem: Beyond Static Identity
Current digital identity systems excel at answering "Who are you?" However, emerging decentralized and autonomous systems increasingly need to answer a different, more complex question:

"Can a system verify continuity over time?"

CPS-0001 addresses this by defining the Continuity Receipt — a cryptographically verifiable record representing evidence collected over a bounded interval.

Designed for Interoperability
The protocol is intentionally engine-independent. It does not require MyShape's implementation, a particular sensor, or a specific evidence algorithm. Our goal is that any third party can independently implement a compatible producer or verifier.

RC1 includes a robust suite of deliverables:
• V₁–V₇ verification contracts
• An independent reference verifier
• A second producer implementation
• Cross-implementation conformance testing
• CLI verification & valid/invalid test vectors
• Browser key security controls

Our Commitment: Explicit Boundaries
Just as importantly, we have explicitly documented what the protocol does NOT prove. CPS-0001 does not claim biological truth, proof-of-human, proof-of-liveness, or universal anti-Sybil protection.

We believe a protocol becomes stronger when its boundaries are transparent. This release is not a declaration that the problem is solved; it is an invitation to challenge the protocol before v1.0.

Get Involved
If you build identity, security, agent infrastructure, robotics, XR, or verification systems, we value your expertise.

Explore the Repository:
https://github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol

Read the Protocol Draft:
https://www.myshape.com/protocol

Join the Discussion: Add your feedback to the repository or reach out to collaborate.

ContinuityProtocol #DigitalIdentity #DecentralizedSystems #Cryptography #OpenSource #Cybersecurity #ProtocolStandard #CPS0001

The Honest Interim Report: Zero Independent Implementations

MyShape-Protocol — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:45:51 +0000

Ten days ago we issued a challenge: "You don't need to trust us. Run it yourself."
A protocol is only real if it survives contact with people who have no reason to be kind to it.

There's one number the spec can't produce for us:

Zero Independent Implementations.
We are going to publish it just the same, because the entire point of this series is that we publish our limitations before we publish our claims.

What the number means:

The ecosystem is still one team.

The engine-independence claim the whole spec rests on has not been tested by a stranger.

The blind implementation test is still an empty template.

Why it matters:
If only one team can produce and verify receipts, the protocol is just that team's format. A protocol is only real when a single spec — no SDK, no source — produces a valid receipt.

The bar is low and open:
Your code → receipt.json → cps-verify → ✅ VALID
30–90 min, any language, any SHA-256 / Ed25519 / JSON library.

We don't ask you to believe anything. We ask you to read the spec, try to implement it, and tell us where you got stuck. Success or failure, your attempt is the data point we need.

The first independent implementation will be listed on the ecosystem page.

Try the two doors:

Implement it: github.com/myshapeprotocol — Independent Implementation Challenge

Join the study: thecontinuitylab.org/research/apply

TheContinuityLab #CPS0001 #OpenProtocol #DecentralizedIdentity #Web3Protocols #ZeroKnowledge #ProtocolDesign #IndependentImplementation #Rust #TypeScript #DeveloperExperience #VerifiableCredentials

You Don't Need to Trust Us. Run It Yourself.

MyShape-Protocol — Sun, 16 Aug 2026 07:19:53 +0000

Six days of explaining what we built and why. Today we stop explaining.

We're issuing a challenge instead.

═══════════════════════════════════════

THE BAR WE SET
We built the protocol for cryptographic continuity. Now, we're asking you to break it.

A clean machine, no prior exposure, one command — and every check passed. That's our standard. Not "read our whitepaper and believe us." Not "trust our benchmark numbers." Run it and see.

═══════════════════════════════════════

HOW TO TAKE THE CHALLENGE

THE ONE-COMMAND CHECK

npx @thecontinuitylab/myshape

If you have Node installed, the package downloads, loads, and self-checks instantly.

TEN LINES OF CODE

npm i @thecontinuitylab/myshape

Call verifyContinuity() with your own sensor data and watch a real cryptographic verdict come back.

THE HARD MODE — IMPLEMENT CPS-0001 YOURSELF

The spec is public. Produce a Continuity Receipt without our help, in your own language, from a fresh reading of the specification.

A protocol is only real if it survives contact with people who have no reason to be kind to it. Break it, implement it, or ignore it — all three are data we want.

You don't need to trust us. Run it yourself.

Spec: github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol
Research hub: thecontinuitylab.org

TheContinuityLab #CPS0001 #OpenProtocol #Cryptography #ZeroKnowledge #HackerChallenge

Most protocol projects follow a familiar path: find a market need, build a solution, publish the spec, drive adoption.

MyShape-Protocol — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:29:33 +0000

We did it differently. We published CPS-0001 before we had evidence that anyone needs it. And we did it deliberately. Here’s why.

👇

1️⃣ PROTOCOL OBJECTS BENEFIT FROM EARLY VISIBILITY
JWT was published before it was widely adopted. OAuth 1.0 was published and then rewritten. HTTP/2 had public drafts long before broad deployment. Early publication gives the community time to find problems, suggest changes, and build compatible tools before the spec is frozen. CPS-0001 defines a genuinely new protocol object — the Continuity Receipt. If it has value, early publication is the fastest way to find out.

2️⃣ WE WANT TO DISCOVER IF THE PROBLEM IS REAL — NOT PRETEND IT IS
Most projects start with a problem and build a solution. We started with a technical capability — an engine-independent protocol for continuity receipts — and are now investigating whether a problem exists that requires it.

3️⃣ EARLY PUBLICATION IS A LEGIBILITY TEST
When you publish a protocol, strangers can read it, criticize it, and try to implement it without your help. If they can't, that is the most valuable signal you can get, and the cheapest time to get it. We're asking: "is this clear enough that someone could spend a day implementing it?" If the answer is no, no market story has any foundation.

4️⃣ WE PUBLISHED BEFORE WE KNEW. THAT WAS THE POINT.
An open protocol is a hypothesis stated in public. It either survives contact with strangers or it doesn't. We'd rather learn that now, while it's still cheap to change.

This is not a growth post. It's an honesty post. We're not claiming market fit. We're claiming we've built something concrete enough to test — and that testing it in the open is the only honest way to find out if it matters.

Read the spec: github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol
Research hub: thecontinuitylab.org

TheContinuityLab #CPS0001 #OpenProtocol #OpenScience

576 Experiments. 4 Engines. One Question.

MyShape-Protocol — Fri, 31 Jul 2026 00:47:43 +0000

576 Experiments. 4 Engines. One Question.

Three days ago we laid out the problem. Yesterday we showed the math behind our approach. Today we show the evidence — all of it.

═══════════════════════════════════════

THE FOUR ENGINES

EE-001 — Presence Entropy Score (PES)

4-dimensional biological noise analysis. No user action needed — it passively measures whether sensor data carries the statistical signature of a living entity.

N = 281 | Cohen's d = 2.1 | AUC = 0.94

"Cohen's d = 2.1" means the distribution of human sensor data is separated from AI-generated data by more than two standard deviations. That's not a subtle difference. That's a detectable signal.

Crucially: inter-person discrimination is d = 0.04. PES was designed to measure presence, not identity. The null result on identity confirms the design intent.

EE-002 — Cross-Modal Causal Coupling

Temporal binding between independent sensor streams (camera + IMU). The question: do both sensors detect the same physical event at the same moment?

100% alignment across 316 trials.

This is important because an AI generating a video doesn't necessarily produce IMU data consistent with the camera motion. The two streams are physically coupled in reality. The coupling is detectable.

EE-003 — Challenge-Response

Randomized gyroscope challenges with jittered timing. The user must move their device in a specific direction within a time window.

60% pass rate, N = 200.

Only 60%? Yes. And that's expected. Challenge-response is noisy by nature — human reaction times vary, motion varies. But the architecture matters more than the score: a real-time challenge costs the verifier almost nothing, while it forces the attacker to solve a physics problem on demand.

VS-001 — Verification Session

Dual-engine pipeline combining passive PES with active challenge escalation. Protocol-level: hash-chained receipts, Ed25519 signatures, V₁-V₇ verification contract.

93% pass rate, 60 sessions.

The pipeline is the point. Each engine individually has gaps. Combined, they do what individuals cannot — because the attacker faces multiple independent tests simultaneously.

═══════════════════════════════════════

WHAT THIS MEANS

576 experimental runs total. Four independent engines. All on consumer hardware. All data open. All failure cases documented alongside results.

We are not claiming to have solved forgery. We are claiming to have built an architecture where the evidence is public, the protocol is engine-independent, and the direction of the data is consistent.

The next step: external verification. Can someone else — using different hardware, different subjects, different conditions — reproduce these results?

If you have a phone and some skepticism, the data is open.

github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol
thecontinuitylab.org

TheContinuityLab #MyShape #CPS0001 #OpenScience

The Forgery Cost Framework: Why We Stopped Looking for Unfreezable Signals 🛑

MyShape-Protocol — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:28:02 +0000

The conventional approach to verification is a constant arms race: a search for a signal that AI cannot reproduce.

We believe this strategy is structurally flawed. It assumes a static technological advantage that never holds against rapid AI advancement.

That’s why we stopped looking for an "unfreezable signal." Instead, we built a framework around something more durable and foundational: Cost Asymmetry.

Introducing the Forgery Cost Framework:

🔹 Single AI-generated frame: Nearly Zero Cost 💸

🔹 + Temporal Consistency: 5× Cost Multiplier ⏳

🔹 + Cross-modal (Camera + IMU): 25× Cost Multiplier 📡

🔹 + Live Randomized Challenge: 100× Cost Multiplier 🎲

Each cost multiplier is structural. It exists because maintaining a consistent, believable lie across independent, heterogeneous evidence channels is exponentially harder and more computationally expensive than generating a single plausible output.

This is why CPS-0001 is engine-independent by design. You don’t need one perfect, proprietary sensor. You need an architecture where adding more evidence channels makes forgery economically impossible while verification remains cheap.

Our proof is in the protocol:

📊 Four evidence engines, same protocol:

✅ EE-001 (PES): Cohen's d = 2.1 (High effect size)

✅ EE-002 (Cross-modal): 100% temporal alignment across 316 trials

✅ EE-003 (Challenge-response): 60% pass rate, 200 trials

✅ VS-001 (Pipeline): Dual-engine pipeline, 93% pass rate

The goal isn't to stop all forgery. The goal is to make forgery not worth it.

We are open-sourcing the future of digital identity verification under Apache 2.0. Dive into the research and build with us.

🔗 Open protocol (Apache 2.0): https://lnkd.in/gFwsvM2Z

🌐 Research hub: thecontinuitylab.org

TheContinuityLab #MyShape #CPS0001 #ForgeryCost #CyberSecurity #DigitalIdentity #AI #Biometrics

Publishing a Protocol Before Users: The Scientific Approach to Digital Continuity

MyShape-Protocol — Tue, 28 Jul 2026 01:16:21 +0000

We Published Our Protocol Before We Had Users. Here's Why.

Most protocol projects follow a familiar path: find a market need, build a solution, publish the spec, drive adoption.

We did it differently. We published CPS-0001 before we had evidence that anyone needs it. And we did it deliberately.

Protocol objects benefit from early visibility. JWT was published before it was widely adopted. OAuth 1.0 was published and then rewritten. HTTP/2 had public drafts long before broad deployment. Early publication gives the community time to find problems, suggest changes, and build compatible tools before the spec is frozen.

CPS-0001 defines a genuinely new protocol object—the Continuity Receipt. If it has value, early publication is the fastest way to find out.

We want to discover if the problem is real — not pretend it is. Most projects start with a problem and build a solution. We started with a technical capability—an engine-independent protocol for continuity receipts—and are now investigating whether a problem exists that requires it.

This is research, not product development. The honest research posture is: "We built something. We don't know if it's useful. Here it is. Help us find out."

This is not a marketing position. It’s a scientific one.

A falsified hypothesis is a valid research outcome. We have three formal experiments in progress:

EXP-001: AI Agent Authorization — do agent frameworks need a standardized continuity object?

EXP-002: Enterprise Session Continuity — is TLS + session cookie insufficient?

EXP-003: XR Spatial Session — do spatial computing platforms need session-level continuity?

Each has a falsifiable hypothesis. If 20 interviews across robotics, XR, security, and agent frameworks reveal that no one needs this—we will publish that conclusion.

That’s a better outcome than spending two years pretending there’s demand when there isn't.

What happens next?
We are running structured discovery interviews. If we find three or more unrelated teams independently solving the same continuity problem with different proprietary formats, the protocol has a reason to exist. If we don't, the protocol will be archived as a research artifact—a well-specified solution to a problem that, at this moment in time, does not exist.

Either outcome is worth publishing.

👇 Let us know your thoughts in the comments, or reach out if you'd like to participate in our discovery interviews.

The Continuity Lab: thecontinuitylab.org

MyShape Protocol Specs: github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol

ProtocolDesign #DigitalContinuity #CPS0001 #Research #OpenSource #IdentityLayer

Identity is a snapshot. Continuity is a trajectory.

MyShape-Protocol — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 16:25:03 +0000

Most security systems are asking the wrong question.

They ask "who are you?" — but AI can already generate your face, your voice, your behavior on demand. The identity signal is intact. The presence signal is gone.

The question that matters now is different: "Are you continuously there?"

Identity is a snapshot. Continuity is a trajectory. In a world where AI can generate any snapshot at will, the trajectory is the only thing that cannot be faked.

We built a protocol for this: CPS-0001.

CPS-0001 defines engine-independent Continuity Receipts — self-verifying cryptographic objects that prove continuous presence over time.

Each receipt:
• Signs evidence data via Ed25519
• Links to its predecessor via SHA-256 hash
• Is verified by a 7-step contract (V₁–V₇)
• Can be produced by any sensor or algorithm — camera, IMU, challenge-response

The Forgery Cost Framework

No single signal is unfakeable. So we don't look for one.

Instead we measure the increasing cost of maintaining consistent forged evidence:

Single frame → 1×

Temporal consistency → 5×
Cross-modal (IMU + camera) → 25×
Live challenge → 100×
Four Evidence Engines — 576 runs

• EE-001 (PES): Biological noise analysis — Cohen's d = 2.1
• EE-002 (Cross-modal): 100% temporal alignment across 316 trials
• EE-003 (Challenge-response): Randomized gyroscope tests — 60% pass
• VS-001 (Pipeline): Dual-engine pipeline — 93% pass rate

arXiv paper in preparation: "Continuity Proofs: An Evidence-Based Framework for Verifying Persistent Entity Presence"

All code open (Apache 2.0). All data public. All limitations documented alongside results.

Not perfection. Asymmetry.

thecontinuitylab.org | github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol

The Continuity Paradigm: Redefining Identity in the AI Era

MyShape-Protocol — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 16:30:43 +0000

Everyone is asking the wrong question about AI and identity.

The industry races to build liveness detection, anti-spoofing, and behavioral biometrics, assuming AI fakes identity signals so we need better ones.

That misses a deeper truth.

The problem isn't weaker signals; "who are you?" is the wrong question. Identity isn't a state—it's a continuous claim. Every post-authentication second risks a broken claim with no checking protocol.

Current web standards (OAuth, TLS, DIDs, VCs) never answer: "Is the same entity still here?"

The Continuity Lab published an open protocol (CPS-0001) for engine-independent continuity receipts proving continuous presence over time.

Not who you are. That you stayed.

Research by The Continuity Lab. myshape.com/research

AI Agents #CyberSecurity #Web3 #DecentralizedIdentity #ContinuityProtocol

Testing a claim: Can you implement CPS-0001 without reading the source?

MyShape-Protocol — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 03:54:16 +0000

We just dropped the blind-implementation challenge for MyShape Protocol—the sovereign 3D identity layer for the decentralized human.

Instead of building another product, we are stress-testing a protocol. We are calling on 3 to 5 sharp, independent developers to see if the specification can stand on its own feet through pure cryptographic verification.

What is the Challenge?

Target: Implement CPS-0001 using pure SHA-256 and Ed25519.
Effort: ~30–90 minutes.
Format: Fork, implement, pass or fail (both are data).
NPM Package: @thecontinuitylab/myshape@0.1.3 is officially live for testing.

Why this matters

True decentralization requires protocol independence. We believe a sovereign 3D identity standard shouldn't rely on closed-source runtimes or fragmented 2D paradigms.

Legacy (2D / Fragmented)	MyShape (3D / Sovereign)
Static metadata	Cryptographically bound continuous identity layer
Siloed platforms	Protocol-level sovereign validation

Not a product pitch. Pure protocol testing.

👉 Check out the repository and start your blind implementation here: MyShape Protocol GitHub Repository

Pass or fail, let’s see what the data tells us.

Beyond 2D: Why AI-era Identity needs a Sovereign 3D Layer

MyShape-Protocol — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:07:33 +0000

The Identity Paradigm Shift
We are moving away from the brittle 2D web towards a sovereign 3D future. Here is how the transition looks:

Data Structure: From static text and pixels to dynamic 3D geometric primitives.

Verification: From centralized OAuth dependencies to robust ZK-SNARK integration.

Human Representation: From flesh-based, gendered avatars to ethereal data energy and wireframe anatomy.

Sovereignty: From platform-owned data silos to true user-owned, self-sovereign identity.

Join us in the data stream: MyShape Protocol Discord

Your body is data. Your data is sovereignty.