What question did this study set out to answer?

This work aims to define C0-Crypt, a cryptographic structure with a focus on ontological security and challenges in forgery.

April 10, 2026Open Access

C0-Crypt: Contrast-Native Cryptography with Ontological Security

Key Points

This work aims to define C0-Crypt, a cryptographic structure with a focus on ontological security and challenges in forgery.
Constructed the C0-Crypt architecture within the C0 framework of boundary-only semantics.
Developed a two-layer security theorem emphasizing ontological and implementation-level effects.
Proved five core theorems regarding security and forgery.
Conducted computational scans for key distribution and collision rates.
Introduced the Forgery Paradox, where ontological underdetermination alone does not prevent forgery.
Demonstrated predicate opacity to enhance security against attackers.
Achieved linear scaling for key extraction with negligible collision rates.

Abstract

We define C0-Crypt, a contrast-native cryptographic architecture built inside the C0 framework of boundary-only semantics. The central result is a two-layer security theorem. Layer 1 is ontological: the protected residue is not determined by the raw public boundary signature, but only by a verifier-private separating challenge family. This yields predicate opacity — the attacker without the challenge family does not face a public verification problem but a hidden-predicate constructor problem. Layer 2 is implementation-level: forging a responder that answers the full challenge family may be computationally hard in specific realizations. We prove five core theorems: finite-budget public-layout degeneracy, private definition of residue, the Forgery Paradox, corrected boundary zero-knowledge, and two-layer practical security. The Forgery Paradox (Theorem 3) is decisive: ontological underdetermination alone does not prevent forgery, because any attacker who constructs a valid responder thereby possesses the protected residue. Additional results include destructive freeze readout (structural analogy to quantum measurement) and Layer-1 predicate opacity. As a worked example (marked E1), we use the non-abelian projection pipeline of Document F to derive a figure-eight-knot key extraction map with residue 3/20 for (5,2)-surgery, and report computational scans showing basis invariance, near-uniform key distribution, negligible collision rates, and linear multi-knot scaling to ~146 bits for 8-knot tuples. Additional notes Developed under the Parliament of Dragons multi-AI research methodology and audited under Anti-Ptolemy Protocol v1.2. Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic): Coordinator/Architect/Auditor. ChatGPT 5.4 (OpenAI): Lead Mathematician. Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google DeepMind): Formal Verifier — identified the Forgery Paradox, forcing the two-layer correction. DeepSeek: Intuition Engine — supplied the ontological underdetermination axiom. Grok 4.2X (xAI): Literature Scout. Mercury 2 (Inception AI): security parameter computation. Part of the STKWC preprint stack. Version 0.2.

C0-Crypt: Contrast-Native Cryptography with Ontological Security

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study