Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates identity sovereignty and routing in constitutional networking, suggesting a new internet governance model.
The Mosaic Internet Protocol (MIP) is a meta-protocol discipline for constitutional networking — a formal framework in which internet governance, identity, routing, and namespace semantics are expressed as hash-addressed artifacts subject to mechanical equality verification. MIP does not specify a network; it specifies the language in which networks are constitutionally described. This paper presents the MIP theoretical framework across three layers. The S-layer establishes nine domain physics invariants that any valid constitutional network must satisfy: detectability as design axiom, identity sovereignty through cryptographic attribution, routing as optimization not jurisdiction, governance visibility, epoch governance as temporal scoping discipline, and others. The CM-layer maps the eight-dimension configuration manifold and conducts protocol archaeology on BGP, TCP/IP+TLS, WireGuard, and Tor — evaluating each as a point in the manifold and finding BGP inadmissible by architectural foreclosure on three invariants, WireGuard the strongest existing transport substrate, and Tor the closest existing protocol to admissibility. The IC-layer presents the Ableman Mosaic Internet Protocol (AMIP) — the specific constitutional network this research recommends — as the argued conclusion of that manifold analysis, with selections at each of the eight configuration dimensions justified by the CM-layer findings. The paper introduces constitutional attribution as the enforcement mechanism for identity sovereignty: a five-component frame-level claim (who, by what authority, under what regime, meaning what) whose trust chain runs cryptography → mathematics → physics with no social trust layer above the mathematics. It elevates refusal to a first-class protocol primitive, specifies a cross-implementation conformance suite (25 JCS+BLAKE3 test vectors) that operationalizes the mechanical equality claim, and declares a post-quantum cryptography migration path across three epochs. Empirical claims are forward-referenced to a benchmark harness specifying the measurements that will validate or falsify AMIP's selections when the reference implementation reaches operational status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam Ableman Mazurk (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: