From 035afcd96a49838869ae4b77ac9c7619c4e038c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: igneum-labs <337424239+igneum-labs@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 15:44:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] fud-ledger: evening sweep paragraphs on the 31 conceded wording items, each naming where the honest sentence now lives Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 --- docs/fud-ledger.md | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/fud-ledger.md b/docs/fud-ledger.md index 11e99a90a..ec8dbfa29 100644 --- a/docs/fud-ledger.md +++ b/docs/fud-ledger.md @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ Answer: True. The prototype dataset is a six-operation closed form, and `--inlin Evidence: `proto-metal/TESTS.md` section 7. Fix: overclaims list, item 23. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, vs RandomX section, the "Measured so far" paragraph: the first dataset was closed-form (inline shortcut 111x faster on the Mac), the 256 MB cache replaced it on 3 October 2026, with the cache computing items runs 4.8x slower than loading them (Measured, Apple), the honest rate is unchanged on both vendors, and the NVIDIA and discrete AMD ratio is marked Open. "What Igneum does not claim" carries the same as "A memory-hard prototype on every vendor". Overclaims 23 and the first item of 78 applied with the cache facts. + ### M3. Kaspa said ASIC resistant too "Every GPU coin promised this. IceRiver shipped a Kaspa chip in eighteen months. Why are you different?" @@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ Answer: Correct. ProgPoW, and KAWPOW on Ravencoin since May 2020 (approximate), Evidence: none in the repository yet; the ProgPoW specification and the Ravencoin repository should be cloned into `vendor/` and cited. Fix: overclaims list, item 5. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, the precedents table (section id `firsts`, retitled "Precedents, and what Igneum adds"), row 1 names RandomX and ProgPoW/KAWPOW as the precedents and what Igneum adds, marked approximate; "Built on the shoulders" marks the ProgPoW and KAWPOW line as cited from memory until the clone. The clone and citation stay fud-fixes row 48. + ### M5. Your load count varies 6x between programs "TESTS.md: loads per hash ranged 40 to 232 across 10,000 programs. A 40-load program is ALU-bound and favours a chip for that hour. Your litepaper says the memory footprint and instruction count are fixed." @@ -91,6 +95,8 @@ Answer: Correct. TESTS.md section 8 says exactly this. The lottery hash needs on Evidence: `proto-metal/TESTS.md` section 8, "Not demonstrated" item 1 and "next three tests" item 3. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section, a new paragraph after the verification sentence: the hash is a lottery and not a general-purpose hash, the three properties it needs, and the label Open: no analysis exists yet, the first job of the phase 1 review. + ### M8. Only two vendors, two programs, one day "'Any card, any vendor, bit-exact' rests on 192 vectors across two programs on one Apple chip and one NVIDIA card, all run on the same day. AMD is untested. Intel is unmentioned." @@ -109,6 +115,8 @@ Answer: Correct. The 0.015 to 0.021 ms figures are with the cheap closed-form da Evidence: `docs/bench-log.md` (first run, CPU verify column), design doc Finality v2 "Residual risks" last bullet and "Three experiments before gate 3". Fix: overclaims list, items 16 and 21. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section and the vs RandomX "Light verification" row: the 10 ms gate with the label Measured, 0.41 to 0.58 ms per warp on one Apple M5 Max core with the 256 MB cache (bench-log, igneum-pow crate, 3 October 2026), and the 2019-class core not yet measured. Overclaims 16 and 21. + ### M10. "Bound by memory bandwidth" is wrong "Your own log says random-access bound. The 5090 moves 95 GB/s of useful loads against 1,638 GB/s sequential. HBM cards and chips with wide random-access memory will beat consumer GDDR here." @@ -145,6 +153,8 @@ Answer: The measured ratio is about 5x in the 5090's favour, so a Mac is a poor Evidence: `docs/bench-log.md`, two-card table. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, "For miners", Hardware: Macs mine at about a fifth of a flagship card, Measured 26.7 against 123 MH/s on the live devnet (4 October 2026), a poor miner per dollar. The projected-earnings sentence was not written: the app shows none (round 4 note), which is right for a devnet. + --- ## 2. Finality and attacks @@ -194,6 +204,8 @@ Answer: Correct reading. The 10 and 20 day figures assume the attacker produces Evidence: `sim/results.md` tables B and C. Fix: overclaims list, item 32. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Finality: "an attacker producing every block on the chain, with honest miners gone" for the 10 and 20 days, plus the matching-hashrate case (20 days for a third, two thirds never); the same arithmetic in "What Igneum does not claim". Overclaim 32. + ### F6. Equivocation costs nothing that matters "A pool that signs two checkpoints loses its vote for 30 days. Not its blocks, not its coins. If two thirds of pools collude to double-spend an exchange, the penalty is a month of not voting." @@ -239,6 +251,8 @@ Answer: True. The vote key is named in the block header by whoever builds the bl Evidence: design doc Finality v2, Residual risks bullet 3. Fix: overclaims list, item 44. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Finality ends with the pool sentence (overclaim 33); Governance opens with "governed by the hashrate that powers it", pool concentration named as the governance risk with the devnet measurement, top-3 keys 34.5% of 8,090 blocks (ledger sweep, X14 run). Overclaim 43. + ### F11. VDFs are exotic "A class-group VDF with Wesolowski proofs in a consensus-critical path, in a project with no cryptographer. Chia needed years and still got timelord ASICs." @@ -281,6 +295,8 @@ Evidence: `site/journey.json` phase 2 gate. Measurement: not yet. Fix: overclaim Cross-reference (external review, 3 October 2026, night): the phase 2 gate now carries an end-to-end acceptance standard, P16 and O-7.1; design R2's halve-and-re-measure fallback is no longer a pass. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Proving, "The proving budget": the sentence opens with the label Target and says the 20-s shard on a 12 GB card is the phase 2 gate, not measured on the card the gate names. Overclaim 27. + ### P2. Real-time proving needs a hundred GPUs per block "Succinct needed on the order of 160 consumer GPUs to prove Ethereum blocks in real time in 2025. You have one block a second. Your gas throughput will be a rounding error or your proofs will fall behind." @@ -308,6 +324,8 @@ Answer: Correct. The hostile review table says "One-proof light clients and comm Evidence: design doc, hostile review table rows "Slashing an external prover" and "One-proof light clients". Fix: overclaims list, items 9 and 38. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, precedents table row 6: at launch one execution proof plus a certificate the client is given, the consensus proof phase two, label Designed; Building item 2 already carried the re-scope (overclaim 38). Overclaim 9. + ### P5. EVM "unchanged" on a DAG is false "block.number, block.timestamp, blockhash, coinbase, prevrandao. On a DAG none of these mean what Solidity assumes. Plus your 2D fee market: wallets estimate one gas, you charge two." @@ -326,6 +344,8 @@ Answer: The litepaper says the market is small three times and calls external pr Evidence: design doc "Market size, honestly" and "Existing prover networks" table (labelled from memory). Fix: overclaims list, items 12 and 58. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`: "cheapest supplier" is gone from The problem (overclaim 12); "lowest cost" from For miners, Questions miners ask and What Igneum does not claim (49, 55): marginal cost close to power, an edge over data-centre provers and nothing more. + ### P7. A soundness bug in SP1 is a consensus failure "SP1 has had disclosed soundness bugs. On Igneum a forged proof means 'a block with a wrong state cannot exist' becomes a wrong state that exists, and your upgrade path is a 90% miner vote with three months' notice." @@ -335,6 +355,8 @@ Answer: Correct that a live soundness bug cannot wait for a three-month release Evidence: design doc "Proof system churn" risk item. Rule: not yet. Fix: overclaims list, items 3 and 26. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Abstract (overclaim 3): no scheduled human release, an emergency fix to the proof system takes a person and activates on signalling. Proving, "How a block gets proven" (overclaim 26): no node accepts a wrong state root, full nodes reject a proof record that disagrees with native execution, label Implemented with spec section 7 named, and the human emergency path stated. The rule this entry asked for is spec 7.2 item 5 and 7.4 item 3 (the native-execution veto), already in the spec. + ### P8. Fastest prover wins all the shards "Aleo's lesson was that proving as a race centralises to the fastest. Your shards are claimed first-come with a bond. The lowest-latency datacentre claims every shard before a home card sees it." @@ -362,6 +384,8 @@ Answer: The litepaper contradicts itself. The design is: at launch external jobs Evidence: design doc "The first six months" risk item and hostile review table row "Slashing an external prover". Fix: overclaims list, item 55. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Economics first paragraph (overclaim 52) and Proving, "Proving for everyone else": jobs paid on the customer's chain at launch, IGN settlement with the 10% burn when the proof bridge lands in phase two; "Where fees go" says "once they settle on Igneum"; the job market labelled Designed. + --- ## 4. Economics and the coin @@ -413,6 +437,8 @@ Answer: Correct in substance. The litepaper discloses the 1% dev fee and says an Evidence: design doc "No development fund, so nothing to fight over". Fix: overclaims list, item 63. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, "No fund, no foundation, no fee to the team": the full list of what the project earns (the 1% Ember dev fee first, its provers, any pool, the app share), none of it in the protocol, "1 block in 100 pays the project" as the quotable line; precedents table row 5 says the same. `site/index.html`, Economics: the closing line names the dev fee beside "no fee to any team in the protocol". No company is named (fud-fixes row 8). + ### E6. Two-year halvings bleed hashrate "Every GPU coin that halved fast lost its miners at the second halving. You halve every two years for ever." @@ -453,6 +479,8 @@ Answer: Correct. No cryptographer has been hired. The litepaper's gate 3 refers Evidence: design doc "Team" paragraph. Fix: overclaims list, item 50. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Questions miners ask, the finality answer (overclaim 48): reviewers will be named and paid before gate 3, every finality claim a design claim until then. "Who are you?" and "What Igneum does not claim" ("A cryptography team"): no cryptographer hired, one budgeted for phases 1 and 2. + ### G2. An AI designed this "The repo has `.claude/agents/cryptographer.md`. The commits are co-authored by a language model. The 'hostile review' was a chatbot role-playing a Kaspa researcher." @@ -462,6 +490,8 @@ Answer: True. The design, the reviews, the prototype code, the simulator and thi Evidence: `.claude/agents/`, commit trailers. Fix: add a disclosure sentence (overclaims list, item 73). +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, cover meta line "Method: one founder with AI systems, external review before gate 3" (overclaim 72) and the "Who are you?" paragraph: one pseudonymous founder working with AI systems produced the design, the reviews, the code, the simulators and the document, the commit history says so, measurements are reproducible, design claims stay design claims, the criticism ledger exists with its conceded entries and is published with the node repository. No names. Decisions for the project lead: whether this ledger is published with the repository (G11), and whether the team page at public testnet names anyone (fud-fixes row 9). + ### G3. Who are you "Anonymous founder, GoDaddy domains, a Vercel site, a litepaper dated the same day as five 'milestones'. This is a template." @@ -480,6 +510,8 @@ Answer: Correct. Consensus has no admin keys. The genesis apps are contracts and Evidence: litepaper "Governance". Fix: overclaims list, item 46. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Governance bullet "There are no admin keys in consensus", the genesis apps' key policies before launch, label Designed, O-5.4 (overclaim 45 without the fund contract); `site/index.html` tile "0 admin keys in consensus". + ### G5. No multi-client "One node implementation, a rusty-kaspa fork with a zkEVM bolted on. A bug is a chain halt. Ethereum learned this in 2016." @@ -500,6 +532,8 @@ Evidence: none in repository. Fix: overclaims list, item 45. Cross-reference (external review, 3 October 2026, night): whether members use declared templates is measured under O-9.5; concentration reporting is X14. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Governance bullet "Pools can be bypassed on transaction choice", a pool may decline, vote keys stay with the pool, label Designed with spec section 9 (overclaim 44). + ### G7. The one-click app is an update key over the network "An app that auto-updates on ten thousand machines is an admin key. Whoever signs the update controls the miners, the wallets the app made, and the vote keys." @@ -540,6 +574,8 @@ Answer: True. "No chip publicly shipped, approximate" is the defensible phrasing Evidence: none. Fix: overclaims list, item 17. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Mining: "no chip publicly shipped, approximate", Monero as precedent not proof, the 2x figure labelled Target; vs RandomX "Track record" row; the cover, abstract, glance figure and limits chip lines (overclaims 1, 2, 13, 17, 18, 19, 50). `site/index.html`: hero (59, 63) and the RandomX intro (67, "since 2019 (approximate)"). + ### C3. vs Kaspa: you misrepresent them "Kaspa never claimed ASIC resistance and did not get 'captured'. It also has 10 bps in production and a GHOSTDAG you are forking. Say thank you." @@ -549,6 +585,8 @@ Answer: Correct on both counts. kHeavyHash was built to be hardware-friendly and Evidence: none in repository; `vendor/rusty-kaspa` to be cloned and cited. Fix: overclaims list, items 8, 11, 29 and 49. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, The problem: "Chips arrived, as on Kaspa, whose hash was designed to welcome them" (overclaim 11); Speed: GHOSTDAG "Kaspa has run in production since 2021 (approximate), forked from rusty-kaspa" with the block-rate step plan credited (29); precedents table row 5 drops "with no utility" (8); "Built on the shoulders" credits the step plan. Citations from the repositories stay fud-fixes row 49. + ### C4. vs Kaspa: a finality overlay changes GHOSTDAG's guarantees "GHOSTDAG's safety comes from blue work. A certificate that overrides blue work and a pruning point that never passes the latest lock are changes to the security model, not features on top." @@ -567,6 +605,8 @@ Answer: The numbers are approximately right and the framing is loose. Inclusion Evidence: litepaper "Speed". Fix: overclaims list, item 30. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Speed: inclusion in the DAG against an Ethereum slot, the miner lock against Ethereum finality marked approximate, "inclusion is not confirmation on either chain", both mechanisms named in one sentence, no cross-reference to this ledger (overclaim 30). + ### C6. vs Ethereum: every one of your components is a research project "A random-program hash with no analysis, a VDF, BLS sortition, STARK recursion on consumer cards, a 2D fee market, a DAG with EVM semantics. Ethereum has a thousand researchers and shipped these one at a time over a decade." @@ -576,6 +616,8 @@ Answer: True. Each component has a precedent in production somewhere (RandomX, C Evidence: litepaper "Roadmap". +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Roadmap intro: each piece has a precedent, no chain combines them, the combination is the risk the gates price; "Dates slip. Gates do not." before the phase-two sentence (overclaim 69). + ### C7. vs Bitcoin: hashrate that follows price is the design, you penalise it "Bitcoin's miners come and go with price and the chain is fine. Your 30-day weight under-weights every honest newcomer for a month and lets old miners lock alone for 20 days after a doubling." @@ -594,6 +636,8 @@ Answer: Correct. Those chains exist and run on GPUs today (approximate). The acc Evidence: none in repository; to be cited from their repositories. Fix: overclaims list, items 10 and 11. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, The problem names Ergo, Ravencoin and Conflux as the chains that stayed small, approximate (overclaim 11); the pull quote reads "lost its largest home" and "built to make it hard to take away" (10); precedents table row 3 names Conflux. + ### C9. vs Aleo: you will centralise the same way "Aleo tried proofs as consensus and the fastest prover won. You keep the lottery separate but the proving pool is still a race." @@ -612,6 +656,8 @@ Answer: Correct on both points (approximate, from memory; verify against their c Evidence: design doc "Existing prover networks" table, labelled approximate. Fix: overclaims list, items 12 and 58. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Proving, "Proving for everyone else": the client bids elsewhere where a miner chooses to hold the collateral, Boundless ZKC and Succinct PROVE named and marked approximate; "cheapest" gone (overclaims 12, 58). + ### C11. vs everyone: "firsts" that are not "'A chain your browser verifies by itself' is phase two by your own doc. 'The GPU version never shipped' ignores KAWPOW. 'Finality immune to rentals' is 'not moved by rentals'. Three of your six firsts are wrong on day one." @@ -621,6 +667,8 @@ Answer: Correct. The firsts table is rewritten in the overclaims list: each row Evidence: this ledger. Fix: overclaims list, items 4 to 9. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`: the firsts table is the precedents table, heading "Precedents, and what Igneum adds", id `firsts` kept, four columns (piece, closest precedent, what Igneum adds, state with Measured, Implemented or Designed), a sources line, "We know of no chain that combines them" and the invitation to correct (overclaims 4 to 9). "Three things ... run nowhere else" and "No other EVM chain" became "we know no other" (36, 37), "No other proof-of-work chain has a seat" likewise (28), "the one useful GPU workload" became "a useful" (24). + ### C12. vs Monero: you borrowed the hash idea and left out the point "Monero's idea is privacy. You took RandomX and shipped a transparent ledger. Calling it 'Monero's idea, finished' is cheek." @@ -703,6 +751,8 @@ Evidence: `site/index.html` footer link; CLAUDE.md says private. Fix: overclaims Cross-reference (external review, 3 October 2026, night): publishing the harnesses, vectors, simulators and spec now, labelled experimental, is G11, a decision for the project lead. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, vs RandomX "Track record" row: the specification, reference hash, vectors and simulators are public at github.com/igneum-network/spec (confirmed public, 5 October 2026); the node, the miner and the wallet are in a private repository until the public testnet. "Built on the shoulders": the provenance table is published at the public testnet. The nav and footer GitHub links already pointed at the public spec repository. Decision for the project lead: the date. This entry, `docs/evidence.md` and the fud-fixes list say January 2027 with the benchmark; the public text now says the public testnet, as instructed; the miners-ask answer still says the benchmark tool is public in January 2027, which holds for a binary. + ### X2. "Get the miner" with no miner "A big button that says 'Get the miner' on a chain with no miner, no testnet and no benchmark. Vapourware CTA." @@ -712,6 +762,8 @@ Answer: Correct. The button should say what exists: "Benchmark: January 2027". Evidence: `site/index.html`. Fix: overclaims list, item 61. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/index.html`: hero "See the miner" and the job card "About the miner" (both to the Mine section), the Mine section button "Downloads open at the public testnet" with a line that the miner runs on a private devnet of invited machines whose coins have no value; `site/partials/nav.html` CTA "The miner" (/miner) and `site/partials/footer.html` "Miner downloads: public testnet", rebuilt into every page. `site/miner.html` and `site/wallet.html`: hero buttons "Downloads: public testnet", the Get sections retitled "at the public testnet" with "No download is open yet", the platform buttons relabelled "public testnet" (they still lead to the journey). Overclaim 60 in its 5 October form, since a miner now exists. + ### X3. "Proven by fire" when nothing has run "Tagline: Proven by fire. Status: pre-specification, pre-testnet. 'Watch the chain prove itself' with nothing on the page." @@ -759,6 +811,8 @@ Answer: Correct. The site needs a contact route before the litepaper is shared, Evidence: `site/index.html` (no contact route). Fix: overclaims list, item 78. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated in part. `site/partials/footer.html` on every page: "Report a flaw" to github.com/igneum-network/spec/issues (the public repository has issues enabled, checked 5 October 2026); the last paragraph of `site/litepaper.html` says the same and that a mailbox follows. Decision for the project lead: the mailbox on the igneum.network Workspace (fud-fixes row 3). The submission line at the top of this ledger still names a route that does not exist and is left for the ledger's owner. + ### X8. Exchange listings as a roadmap item "'Mainnet fair launch: Genesis with no premine, 30-day ramp, exchange listings after.' You put listings in the roadmap." @@ -768,6 +822,8 @@ Answer: Correct. No listing is arranged, promised or sought by the project. The Evidence: litepaper "Roadmap", `site/journey.json`. Fix: overclaims list, item 75. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html` roadmap phase 6 and `site/journey.json` phase 6: "Genesis with no premine, 30-day ramp. No listing is arranged, promised or sought by the project" (overclaim 58); the home page's inlined journey rebuilt from it. + ### X9. Launch hashrate will be trivial "Day one of a GPU coin with a 10% emission ramp is a few hundred cards. Anyone with a cloud account out-mines it for the price of lunch, and your finality has no history to lean on." @@ -777,6 +833,8 @@ Answer: True. The lottery is as attackable as any new proof-of-work chain for as Evidence: `sim/results.md` table A (full weight only from day 32 to 41 from zero history). Fix: overclaims list, item 31. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Finality: no checkpoint locks in the first 30 days, the first-month gate labelled Implemented and measured (bench-log "finality fixes F17 and F1", 4 October 2026), proof of work with the 12-hour depth meanwhile, the devnet's two-hour window explained. "Fair launch, announced" and "What Igneum does not claim" ("Finality in the first month") say the same; a deposit sentence replaces "exchanges are told" because no listing is sought (overclaims 31, 75, second item of 78). + ### X10. Five milestones in one day "Your Journey log shows five entries, all dated 3 October 2026. That is one day's work presented as a history." @@ -786,6 +844,8 @@ Answer: It is one day's work, and the log says the date on every line. The label Evidence: `site/journey.json`. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/index.html`, journey section: a line above the log says it is the engineering log's dated entries, newest first, day one 3 October 2026, several entries per date because the work is logged as it is run. A "Day one" label alone would now mislead, since the log spans three days. + --- ## Count by status @@ -1097,6 +1157,8 @@ Answer: Correct. Spec 1.4.1: `sel` is `r0` at the top of each iteration and each Evidence: spec 1.4.1. Fix: `site/litepaper.html` vs RandomX row, "Random program" (review, RandomX author, sentence). Review id R3.8. +Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, vs RandomX "Random program" row drops the per-hash data path and says the 128 dataset addresses change with the nonce; the Mining table "Every hash" row says the one-bit select costs a chip nothing and is not a defence. + ### M19. The census that justifies the generator rule has blank cells, and the spec still carries the free load count "Section 7.1 of your census has `FRESH2_DIST`, `FRESH2_P` and `FRESH2_CAND` where the proposed generator's numbers go, section 7.2 is the word `FRESH2_ACCEPTED`, section 7.3 is `CF_AGREEMENT`, and the spec text you propose cites a rejection rate called `REJECT-RATE`. Until it is filled and adopted every hour is a different coin."