What is MyShape Protocol?

MyShape Protocol is an open research framework investigating whether digital continuity can become a verifiable property. It analyzes motion patterns through motion-signature technology — an on-device approach that verifies continuous presence without storing personal visual data or any personally identifiable information.

How is MyShape different from static identity systems?

Static identity systems store fixed attributes that, once compromised, can never be replaced. MyShape verifies dynamic presence — the way an entity moves — rather than static attributes. Motion is generative and inexhaustible: each verification produces a fresh cryptographic proof, and temporal uniqueness raises the cost of replay. No physical identity data is stored or transmitted by default.

What is Proof of Continuity?

Proof of Continuity is the cryptographic primitive at the heart of MyShape. It records a bounded observation interval — across sessions, devices, and agents — as an independently verifiable signed receipt. Unlike a snapshot credential, a receipt must be regenerated by a live, present entity — raising the cost of replay and copying.

Can AI agents use MyShape Protocol?

Yes. MyShape is designed for the Agent Economy where human and AI identities coexist. AI agents can participate as entities holding their own keys, without a separate registration protocol. However, maintaining a convincing continuous presence over time requires sustained physical interaction — raising the cost of prolonged impersonation; not established as infeasible.

CONTINUITY, WITHOUT IDENTITY.

Identity tells you who someone claims to be.
Continuity asks whether the same key-controlled presence persisted across an interval.

PRESENCE|

Identity answers who you are.

Continuity asks whether the same key-controlled presence persisted across an interval.

Why Continuity →

SIMULATION

SIMULATED PRESENCE ENTROPYPHASE 0/5

0PES

LOW ENTROPY

SCAN TIME30s

MODESimulated

PRIVACYLocal Only

Simulation only. No sensor data is collected here.

Explore →

Research

The Continuity Problem

AI didn't break identity. It broke continuity. We can no longer tell whether the same entity is still here.

01THE GAP

Can AI generate a face? Yes. A voice? Yes. But can it generate biological entropy?

4-dimensional entropy scoring

02CAUSAL COUPLING

If two sensors see the same physical event, do their signals agree?

Cross-modal binding

03CHALLENGE RESPONSE

What happens when we send a randomized gyroscope challenge — something a recording can't predict?

Jittered timing vs. replay — exploratory

04VERIFICATION SESSION

Can we chain these checks into a single verification session — passive first, then escalating?

Dual-engine pipeline

CONTINUITY PROOF

After verification, what remains? A yes? A no? Or evidence — signed, timestamped, digest-bound?

Evidence Receipt // SHA-256 digest

HOVER TO ISOLATE SIGNAL

01THE GAP

Can AI generate a face? Yes. A voice? Yes. But can it generate biological entropy?

4-dimensional entropy scoring

02CAUSAL COUPLING

If two sensors see the same physical event, do their signals agree?

Cross-modal binding

03CHALLENGE RESPONSE

What happens when we send a randomized gyroscope challenge — something a recording can't predict?

Jittered timing vs. replay — exploratory

04VERIFICATION SESSION

Can we chain these checks into a single verification session — passive first, then escalating?

Dual-engine pipeline

05CONTINUITY PROOF

After verification, what remains? A yes? A no? Or evidence — signed, timestamped, digest-bound?

Evidence Receipt // SHA-256 digest

Developer

One command.
Receipt verified.

No servers. No accounts. Three lines of code.
SDK 0.3.0 · evaluation only. Reference verifier: cps-verify.

CPS-0001●ACTIVE
ED25519●SHA-256●LOCAL●SIMULATION

V₁Schema Validity

V₂Signature

V₃Assertion Consistency

V₄Temporal Consistency

V₅Evidence Reference Integrity

V₆Freshness

V₇Predecessor Reference

✓ PASS receipt generated

Run Playground Install SDK Read Protocol

CLASSIFIEDILLUSTRATIVEREF: CPS-0001-2026-07

Not a whitepaper. Not a promise.

Built from open research. No black box.

timestamp
0x7a3f9c1e

protocolCPS-0001

evidence3 engines

benchmarkPES research

verificationPASS

integritySHA-256

signatureEd25519

All research, benchmarks, and protocols are public at The Continuity Lab →Challenge CPS-0001 →

How It Works

From signals to evidence

Five stages. Different engines, one receipt format. Any signal, any algorithm — one receipt format.

Signals

IMU · Camera · Logs

Any source. Engine-independent.

Engine

EE-001 → EE-00N

Pluggable. 3 engines.

Receipt

CPS-0001 · Ed25519

Ed25519-signed receipt. Evidence bound by SHA-256.

Verify

V₁–V₇ · In-Browser

Seven checks. Independently verifiable.

Decision

PASS · FAIL · INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE

Policy-driven. Reproducible.

Open Questions

What we still don't know

The questions above have answers. These don't — yet.

Reproducibility

Can independent teams reproduce our benchmark results — on their own hardware?

Scale

How does continuity verification scale across millions of entities?

Hardware Floor

What's the minimum sensor quality needed for reliable continuity verification?

Security

What attack vectors haven't we found yet?

Reproducibility

Can independent teams reproduce our benchmark results — on their own hardware?

Hardware Floor

What's the minimum sensor quality needed for reliable continuity verification?

Scale

How does continuity verification scale across millions of entities?

Security

What attack vectors haven't we found yet?

The Continuity Lab →

CONTINUITY, WITHOUT IDENTITY.

Identity tells you who someone claims to be.
Continuity asks whether the same key-controlled presence persisted across an interval.

PRESENCE|

Identity answers who you are.

Continuity asks whether the same key-controlled presence persisted across an interval.

Why Continuity →

SIMULATION

SIMULATED PRESENCE ENTROPYPHASE 0/5

0PES

LOW ENTROPY

SCAN TIME30s

MODESimulated

PRIVACYLocal Only

Simulation only. No sensor data is collected here.

Explore →

Research

The Continuity Problem

AI didn't break identity. It broke continuity. We can no longer tell whether the same entity is still here.

01THE GAP

Can AI generate a face? Yes. A voice? Yes. But can it generate biological entropy?

4-dimensional entropy scoring

02CAUSAL COUPLING

If two sensors see the same physical event, do their signals agree?

Cross-modal binding

03CHALLENGE RESPONSE

What happens when we send a randomized gyroscope challenge — something a recording can't predict?

Jittered timing vs. replay — exploratory

04VERIFICATION SESSION

Can we chain these checks into a single verification session — passive first, then escalating?

Dual-engine pipeline

CONTINUITY PROOF

After verification, what remains? A yes? A no? Or evidence — signed, timestamped, digest-bound?

Evidence Receipt // SHA-256 digest

HOVER TO ISOLATE SIGNAL

01THE GAP

Can AI generate a face? Yes. A voice? Yes. But can it generate biological entropy?

4-dimensional entropy scoring

02CAUSAL COUPLING

If two sensors see the same physical event, do their signals agree?

Cross-modal binding

03CHALLENGE RESPONSE

What happens when we send a randomized gyroscope challenge — something a recording can't predict?

Jittered timing vs. replay — exploratory

04VERIFICATION SESSION

Can we chain these checks into a single verification session — passive first, then escalating?

Dual-engine pipeline

05CONTINUITY PROOF

After verification, what remains? A yes? A no? Or evidence — signed, timestamped, digest-bound?

Evidence Receipt // SHA-256 digest

Developer

One command.
Receipt verified.

No servers. No accounts. Three lines of code.
SDK 0.3.0 · evaluation only. Reference verifier: cps-verify.

CPS-0001●ACTIVE
ED25519●SHA-256●LOCAL●SIMULATION

V₁Schema Validity

V₂Signature

V₃Assertion Consistency

V₄Temporal Consistency

V₅Evidence Reference Integrity

V₆Freshness

V₇Predecessor Reference

✓ PASS receipt generated

Run Playground Install SDK Read Protocol

CLASSIFIEDILLUSTRATIVEREF: CPS-0001-2026-07

Not a whitepaper. Not a promise.

Built from open research. No black box.

timestamp
0x7a3f9c1e

protocolCPS-0001

evidence3 engines

benchmarkPES research

verificationPASS

integritySHA-256

signatureEd25519

All research, benchmarks, and protocols are public at The Continuity Lab →Challenge CPS-0001 →

How It Works

From signals to evidence

Five stages. Different engines, one receipt format. Any signal, any algorithm — one receipt format.

Signals

IMU · Camera · Logs

Any source. Engine-independent.

Engine

EE-001 → EE-00N

Pluggable. 3 engines.

Receipt

CPS-0001 · Ed25519

Ed25519-signed receipt. Evidence bound by SHA-256.

Verify

V₁–V₇ · In-Browser

Seven checks. Independently verifiable.

Decision

PASS · FAIL · INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE

Policy-driven. Reproducible.

Open Questions

What we still don't know

The questions above have answers. These don't — yet.

Reproducibility

Can independent teams reproduce our benchmark results — on their own hardware?

Scale

How does continuity verification scale across millions of entities?

Hardware Floor

What's the minimum sensor quality needed for reliable continuity verification?

Security

What attack vectors haven't we found yet?

Reproducibility

Can independent teams reproduce our benchmark results — on their own hardware?

Hardware Floor

What's the minimum sensor quality needed for reliable continuity verification?

Scale

How does continuity verification scale across millions of entities?

Security

What attack vectors haven't we found yet?

The Continuity Lab →

CONTINUITY, WITHOUT IDENTITY.

Identity answers who you are.

The Continuity Problem

One command.Receipt verified.

From signals to evidence

What we still don't know

CONTINUITY, WITHOUT IDENTITY.

Identity answers who you are.

The Continuity Problem

One command.Receipt verified.

From signals to evidence

What we still don't know

One command.
Receipt verified.

One command.
Receipt verified.