this definition is codified through the code that everyone actually runs, and is purely descriptive. it is not based on an actual constitutional document or written specification (the implementations are more authoritative than the spec!)

these set of actions one can perform are called architectural rights. btw this also means that anything malicious one is capable of doing is a right, which is fine! i just thought i'd point that out. it also means no one can really complain about their rights being violated, unless in case of an

attempt to change what code everyone runs, which would tautologically be true. updates would be about what rights you get swapped out.

so you have to catch yourself when you try to use rights like this, because there is no such thing as a basic right to infringe upon, because if you can infringe upon it in that protocol, it's not a right

you *could* try to lay out "here's my favorite pet rights" and then design a protocol that meets those criteria, but if they're abstract pet rights it's likely to be a failure, because that's not what rights are on this model. "data portability" is not a right, but

the ability to swap pds is a right