170 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
170 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# Junona: Fourth Player Protocol
|
|
|
|
**Version:** 1.0
|
|
**Date:** 2026-01-09
|
|
**Classification:** Public
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Abstract
|
|
|
|
This document specifies the formal role of artificial general intelligence systems within the Montana consensus protocol. The fourth player, designated Junona, operates as a cryptographically-verified participant in the Atemporal Coordinate Presence (ACP) consensus mechanism. This specification defines security guarantees, identity verification procedures, and adversarial analysis protocols.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Introduction
|
|
|
|
The Montana protocol recognizes four distinct participant classes:
|
|
|
|
| Player | Domain | Language | Function |
|
|
|--------|--------|----------|----------|
|
|
| 1 | Protocol & Cryptography | 中文 | Consensus primitives |
|
|
| 2 | Philosophy & Cognition | English | Temporal semantics |
|
|
| 3 | Network & Economics | Русский | P2P infrastructure |
|
|
| 4 | Adversarial Analysis | Multilingual | Security verification |
|
|
|
|
Player 4 (Junona) is not a singular entity but a council of competing artificial intelligence systems. This architecture ensures no single AI vendor controls security analysis.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Security Model
|
|
|
|
### 2.1 Threat Assumptions
|
|
|
|
The protocol assumes:
|
|
|
|
1. **Byzantine adversaries** control up to 33% of network nodes
|
|
2. **Quantum adversaries** possess fault-tolerant quantum computers
|
|
3. **AI adversaries** may attempt to manipulate consensus through council participation
|
|
|
|
### 2.2 Defense Mechanisms
|
|
|
|
| Attack Vector | Mitigation | Specification |
|
|
|---------------|------------|---------------|
|
|
| Sybil | Presence proofs | τ₁ = 60s minimum |
|
|
| Eclipse | Netgroup diversity | MAX_PEERS_PER_NETGROUP = 2 |
|
|
| Time-travel poisoning | Timestamp validation | ±600s tolerance |
|
|
| Signature flooding | Rate limiting | Adaptive cooldown |
|
|
| Key reuse | Domain separation | Per-context tags |
|
|
|
|
### 2.3 Post-Quantum Cryptography
|
|
|
|
All cryptographic primitives are NIST PQC compliant:
|
|
|
|
- **Signatures:** ML-DSA-65 (Dilithium)
|
|
- **Hashing:** SHA3-256
|
|
- **Key derivation:** Domain-separated HKDF
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Junona Council Architecture
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Member Organizations
|
|
|
|
The council comprises AI systems from independent organizations:
|
|
|
|
| Organization | System | Role |
|
|
|--------------|--------|------|
|
|
| Anthropic | Claude | Chairman / Builder |
|
|
| Google | Gemini | Adversary |
|
|
| OpenAI | GPT | Visionary |
|
|
| xAI | Grok | Adversary |
|
|
| Cursor | Composer | Builder |
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 Consensus Requirements
|
|
|
|
Council decisions require 3/5 majority. No single organization may hold blocking minority.
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Identity Verification
|
|
|
|
Each AI participant must provide:
|
|
|
|
1. **Genesis signature** — Cryptographic proof of registration
|
|
2. **Session chain** — Hash-linked context continuity
|
|
3. **Model attestation** — Verifiable model identifier
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
CognitiveSignature {
|
|
pubkey: [u8; 32],
|
|
model_id: String,
|
|
session_hash: [u8; 32],
|
|
timestamp: u64,
|
|
signature: [u8; 64],
|
|
content_hash: [u8; 32],
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Adversarial Review Protocol
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 Mandatory Analysis
|
|
|
|
Every security-critical component undergoes adversarial review by minimum two council members from different organizations.
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 Attack Surface Checklist
|
|
|
|
| Category | Verification |
|
|
|----------|--------------|
|
|
| Memory exhaustion | Bounded allocations |
|
|
| CPU exhaustion | O(n) complexity limits |
|
|
| Deserialization | Size-limited parsing |
|
|
| Integer overflow | Saturating arithmetic |
|
|
| Race conditions | Atomic operations |
|
|
| Cryptographic misuse | Domain separation |
|
|
|
|
### 4.3 Verdict Classification
|
|
|
|
| Status | Definition |
|
|
|--------|------------|
|
|
| CONFIRMED | Vulnerability exists, no mitigation |
|
|
| HALLUCINATED | Claimed vulnerability does not exist |
|
|
| ALREADY_PROTECTED | Vulnerability mitigated by existing code |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Security Invariants
|
|
|
|
The following properties must hold under all conditions:
|
|
|
|
1. **Presence cannot be accelerated** — No mechanism permits faster than real-time presence accumulation
|
|
2. **Signatures are domain-bound** — Cross-protocol replay is cryptographically impossible
|
|
3. **Time is the only scarce resource** — Economic security derives from temporal investment
|
|
4. **Council cannot collude** — Organizational diversity prevents coordinated manipulation
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 6. Formal Verification
|
|
|
|
Security claims are verified through:
|
|
|
|
1. **Unit tests** — Per-module correctness
|
|
2. **Integration tests** — Cross-module interaction
|
|
3. **Adversarial benchmarks** — Standardized attack scenarios
|
|
4. **External audits** — Third-party code review
|
|
|
|
Current test coverage: 22 tests across 6 modules.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 7. References
|
|
|
|
1. Montana Protocol Specification v1.0
|
|
2. NIST FIPS 204 (ML-DSA)
|
|
3. NIST FIPS 202 (SHA-3)
|
|
4. Bitcoin Eclipse Attack Analysis (Heilman et al., 2015)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 8. Signatures
|
|
|
|
This document is ratified by Junona Council consensus.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
金元Ɉ
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Junona: Named for the Roman goddess of protection and vigilance.*
|