Q1. How are proposal contracts audited?
=> Proposals are based on the ontological language OWL.
This seems fairly restrictive if you're trying to describe an entire protocol. How would you make a proposal to replace your transactions with zero-knowledge proof based transactions for instance?
By using an inference engine, we are able to validate the logic of the contracts. This would mean we can pre-audit contracts for logical errors before they are uploaded on to the blockchain. We also applied timed-automata limitation property for our domain specific language.
You're talking about smart contracts here, not a protocol.
Q2. How are decisions enforced? Tezos upgrades are automatic.
=> BOScoin’s upgrades are also automatic. When a proposal(Trust Contract) passes the voting process, this is assumed to be a social consensus and the changes are applied automatically to the network. This is possible because we structured the platform on OWL ontologies.
OWL is great and all, but it seems to me that you can only implement some fairly simple parametrization of a fixed algorithm.
Q3. How do we enforce meta-rules(constitutionalism)?
=> I don’t know if this is what you mean exactly by constitutionalism, but there are certain ontologies that are more fundamental than other higher level ontologies in the BOS platform. Also these fundamental ontologies have been used and tested in many domains for more than ten years.
I mean can your protocol introspect into protocol change proposals and accept or reject them automatically?
Thank you so much for your interest and questions.
I clearly understand what you asked.
And there is some difference in blockchain design between yours and ours. So it is not proper to compare the two blockchain with same criteria but I can say in principle that we can change the protocol by voting and it will be updated automatically.
We are now designing the detail rules of governance. We'll tell you this in detail afterward.
