igneum-network/igneum
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Activity

Enforced proving: row 6 of the six negative tests reads team-tested for the native veto and PENDING for the proof side (the coordinator's clock, 17:3x UK)

Browse source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs 2026-10-08 16:31:07 +00:00
parent 8a494867a5
commit 200f3d136b
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
docs/fud-ledger.md
View file

@ -1810,7 +1810,7 @@ Round 2 (5 October 2026, night): the public text now carries the v0 fact, labell
### P22. The rewards and payouts are inputs to the shard proof, not outputs
"The shard guest takes the segment's rewards and the prover payouts as data and commits the post-root after them. A host can feed any list and the proof still verifies."
Status: Open, staged (8 October 2026, the enforced-proving lane; `docs/spec/proving-enforcement.md` section 7 carries the staging table): the closure is four explicit stages, each a claim about one input with the native check that holds it until the next stage, never a self-contained proof of the whole state. Stage 0 (today): rewards and payouts are data in the shard statement and every node's native derivation vetoes a statement that differs; enforced proving adds that the record's proof must verify for that statement (ledger P21). Stage 1: the rewards list checked against a commitment the aggregator carries in its public values, the commitment itself recomputed natively from the mergeset. Stage 2: the payouts derived inside the aggregator guest from the carried records it verifies, `carried_payouts` the native check of the same derivation. Stage 3: the rewards derived inside the aggregator guest from the headers and blue sets it verifies, the consensus proof proper; only here do rewards stop being an input anywhere. Stages 1 to 3 are the phase 2 consensus-proof work (Nov 2026 to Jan 2027 per the litepaper roadmap); no served text says "the rewards and payouts are proven" before stage 3. The 2.0 plan's negative test (6) (incorrect rewards or consensus inputs: derivation authenticated) is PENDING in that sense: the executor test `enforced_a_statement_over_altered_rewards_or_payouts_is_vetoed_native_derivation_is_the_check` holds the native veto (every node's own derivation), and the proof-side closure is stage 3. Boundary sentence for every served text: a proof of execution is not a proof of authenticated consensus inputs, canonical history or data availability. Was: Open, blocked on the phase 2 consensus proof (design 7: the aggregator derives the rewards and payouts from consensus data it verifies, so they become outputs of the proof): next step that consensus-proof work, in phase 2 (Nov 2026 to Jan 2027 per the litepaper roadmap), no earlier date. Was: Open, stated in spec 7.7 item 6 (4 October 2026). Sweep (5 October 2026): stated; nothing runnable.
Status: Open, staged (8 October 2026, the enforced-proving lane; `docs/spec/proving-enforcement.md` section 7 carries the staging table): the closure is four explicit stages, each a claim about one input with the native check that holds it until the next stage, never a self-contained proof of the whole state. Stage 0 (today): rewards and payouts are data in the shard statement and every node's native derivation vetoes a statement that differs; enforced proving adds that the record's proof must verify for that statement (ledger P21). Stage 1: the rewards list checked against a commitment the aggregator carries in its public values, the commitment itself recomputed natively from the mergeset. Stage 2: the payouts derived inside the aggregator guest from the carried records it verifies, `carried_payouts` the native check of the same derivation. Stage 3: the rewards derived inside the aggregator guest from the headers and blue sets it verifies, the consensus proof proper; only here do rewards stop being an input anywhere. Stages 1 to 3 are the phase 2 consensus-proof work (Nov 2026 to Jan 2027 per the litepaper roadmap); no served text says "the rewards and payouts are proven" before stage 3. The 2.0 plan's negative test (6) (incorrect rewards or consensus inputs: derivation authenticated) is team-tested for the native veto (the executor test `enforced_a_statement_over_altered_rewards_or_payouts_is_vetoed_native_derivation_is_the_check`, green on build-2 at 17:10 UK on proving-payment 421bb852: every node's own derivation refuses a statement over other rewards or payouts) and PENDING for the proof side, the derivation inside the aggregator guest, which is stage 3. Boundary sentence for every served text: a proof of execution is not a proof of authenticated consensus inputs, canonical history or data availability. Was: Open, blocked on the phase 2 consensus proof (design 7: the aggregator derives the rewards and payouts from consensus data it verifies, so they become outputs of the proof): next step that consensus-proof work, in phase 2 (Nov 2026 to Jan 2027 per the litepaper roadmap), no earlier date. Was: Open, stated in spec 7.7 item 6 (4 October 2026). Sweep (5 October 2026): stated; nothing runnable.
Answer: Correct, and already true of the rewards since devnet v4 (`BlockFixture.rewards`, `proving_pool_credit`): the shard statement is "from this pre-root, these transactions, these rewards and payouts, the post-root is X". The node checks the statement against its own execution, which used the rewards and payouts consensus derived, so a proof over a different list does not match any node's statement and pays nothing. Closing it in the proof itself means the aggregator deriving the rewards and payouts from consensus data it verifies (the mergeset's blue blocks and the carried records), which is the consensus-proof work of design section 7.

2
docs/spec/proving-enforcement.md
View file

@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ The Igneum 2.0 plan (p. 16) names six negative tests every validator must pass.
| (3) a wrong chain, epoch or statement binding, replayed or misbound work | `enforced_a_record_signed_for_another_network_pays_nothing` (the chain); `enforced_a_replayed_record_pays_nothing_the_second_time` (replay); `assignment_follows_the_window_and_records_check_against_native_execution` (a wrong block, a wrong shard, a stale record outside the window, a wrong statement); the epoch binds through the sortition's epoch seed and the chain block in the statement | executor | green 16:15 UK |
| (4) a changed payout identity | `enforced_an_altered_payout_address_pays_nothing` (altered after signing: the signature; re-signed: the statement binds the payout) | executor | green 16:15 UK |
| (5) a duplicate proof reward: exactly the permitted payment outcome | `enforced_a_duplicate_of_a_paid_record_by_another_key_pays_nothing`; the honest record paid once in (1)'s test | executor | green 16:15 UK |
| (6) incorrect rewards or consensus inputs: derivation authenticated, not only execution over supplied inputs | `enforced_a_statement_over_altered_rewards_or_payouts_is_vetoed_native_derivation_is_the_check` (a statement whose post-root came from execution over other rewards or payouts is not the native statement and pays nothing: the native veto, every node's own derivation) | executor, branch proving-payment of the fork at 421bb852 (on release-2.0.0-node's c04674fe), igneum-exec 67 passed on build-2 at 17:10 UK | PENDING as the plan means it: the derivation is authenticated by every node's own execution, not inside the proof; the proof-side closure is P22's stages 1 to 3 (section 7), phase 2 |
| (6) incorrect rewards or consensus inputs: derivation authenticated, not only execution over supplied inputs | `enforced_a_statement_over_altered_rewards_or_payouts_is_vetoed_native_derivation_is_the_check` (a statement whose post-root came from execution over other rewards or payouts is not the native statement and pays nothing: the native veto, every node's own derivation) | executor, branch proving-payment of the fork at 421bb852 (on release-2.0.0-node's c04674fe), igneum-exec 67 passed on build-2 at 17:10 UK | team-tested for what the test holds (the derivation authenticated by every node's own execution: a statement over other rewards or payouts pays nothing); PENDING for the proof side (the derivation inside the aggregator guest, P22's stages 1 to 3, section 7, phase 2), the served label until stage 3 |
The boundary sentence of the plan, carried in every served text that names the rule: a proof of execution is not a proof of authenticated consensus inputs, canonical history or data availability. What the rule proves today is that the carried record's statement is the native statement of this node's own execution and that an SP1 proof of that statement verifies; what consensus inputs the execution used, which history is canonical and whether the data is available are each the node's own reading, not the proof's.