Site: the pages rebuilt on the record branch (the regrouped bench table and the outside-check text as built from this tree)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs
parent
9cfa334894
commit
3231a80fe2
8 changed files with 21 additions and 6 deletions
|
|
@ -357,6 +357,12 @@ Reading: NO. Class v5 with the shadow at zero leaves the strongest chip at 5.1x
|
|||
|
||||
Per tier: a miner on class v4 pays the premium and gets the 2.1x to 3.9x chip ceiling in exchange; on class v5 with the shadow kept the ceiling stays and the dataset is the chain's; on class v5 with the shadow dropped the premium goes and the ceiling returns to 5x to 9x. The decision is the founder's; this section gives the number.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.11 Two columns from the counter-asic-4 research file (7 October 2026, 22:3x UK; `docs/analysis/counter-asic-4-research.md` sections 15 to 19 at bca23f96, the research lane's reading, carried here as the chip model's own columns)
|
||||
|
||||
The k column. k is the chip core's energy per op over the GPU's at the same operating point, and the model's 3.4x row takes k about 0.33 for an ALU-shaped core. On the public figures the int8 tensor tile is the one GPU block whose energy per op a chip at the same node cannot undercut with certainty: the 4090 measures 0.056 pJ per MAC; NVIDIA's 5 nm INT4 test chip reads 0.021 pJ per MAC at 0.46 V and about 0.1 at nominal (JSSC 2023, via Dally's NASEM slides; claimed), so INT8 at 2x to 4x that gives k 0.7 to 3 with the centre near 1; every ALU-shaped block reads k 0.3 to 0.8 on the same sources. A shadow built of tensor tiles at the ALU shadow's premium (about 11,400 u8 tiles per hash) therefore gives 2.1x at k = 1 and 1.6x at k = 1.5 and removes the k 0.3 column from the table; it needs a SIMD byte-dot verifier (the scalar one at 12.4 ms fails the 10 ms gate). This is a design candidate, not the shipped stream: the shipped shadow is ALU-shaped and its row stays 2.1x at k = 1 and 3.4x at k about 0.33.
|
||||
|
||||
The capex column. The `f = 1` GDDR7 chip of 5.5 is USD 2.8 per MH/s of silicon and memory, which is USD 0.00016 per MH/s-hour of capex over two years against USD 0.000023 of electricity: capex-dominated 7x, as the 5090 is (USD 14.7 per MH/s at MSRP, 10x). A 64 MiB hot table adds about USD 15 of N5 die, the shadow core USD 25 to 40, an interposer USD 200, so the chip's capex reaches at most about USD 4.3 per MH/s: the per-unit capex wall is unreachable by 3x to 7x, and the break-even market cap moves only through the project cost (the mission lane's model: about USD 100 M with the N5 shadow core, about 200 M if the shadow runs per load and forces one die or an interposer). Every figure here is modelled on cited or claimed parts; the research lane's microbench (20 probes, the mma_u8 and l2 rows the ones this model would take) is on PC 1's queue after the hot-table job.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. The per-day derivation (item 2)
|
||||
|
||||
6 October 2026, Counter ASIC 3.0 item 2, worker `derive` (`docs/plans/counter-asic-3-derivation.md`; everything
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Versions in the table: `igneum-pow` is the Rust crate at `igneum-pow/Cargo.toml`
|
|||
| 14 | Ethereum bytecode runs unchanged, with the documented differences of spec 7.1 | Homepage Build card; litepaper Building | tested by the team | as row 13; fixes `F-exec-A`, `F-exec-B` (spec 7.5) | `tools/evm-smoke/smoke.mjs`: deploy via viem, `increment`, `hashLoop`, `eth_estimateGas`, `eth_getLogs`; `tools/exec-attacks` scenarios 1 and 3; bench-log "execution layer attack fixes" | Deployment, calls, reverts, logs and gas estimates behave as viem expects; chain id 4463; the prototype pgas table gives 0.0095 to 0.028 pgas per gas, below the design's band before calibration, 3 October 2026. 4 October 2026: a transaction that would cross the block's proving budget is refused by the mempool and, if forced in, aborted and charged with its nonce advanced (25 of 25 checks; 30 of 30 malformed cases). Apple M5 Max. The `Prover` precompile, proof records and the shard planner are not in the node | none yet |
|
||||
| 15 | Every block is proven, with the proof landing within about a minute at launch | Homepage stats ("~60 s to a proof"); litepaper Proving; roadmap phase 3 gate | implemented | repo `d7e1f89` (GPU proof), `e01a3cc`, `292e800`, `eedd136` (`proving/igneum-prove`: shard cutter, MPT witnesses, shard and aggregator guests); SP1 6.8.1; spec 7.2, 7.6 | `proving/windows-wsl2` (SETUP-PROVER, PROVE-BLOCK) on the RTX 5090; `igneum-prove-host --mode block` on `proving/fixtures/`; bench-log "proving v0 on the RTX 5090" and "proving: devnet v4 shards" | First GPU proof of an Igneum block, 4 October 2026, RTX 5090 (WSL2, SP1 cuda, mining paused): fixture `block-78-increment` (2 transactions), core proof 1.4 s (7.3 MB, verify 0.221 s), compressed proof 2.7 s (1.27 MB, verify 0.038 s), post-state and receipts roots identical to the node's; 15.7x and 20.6x faster than a loaded M5 Max CPU. The same day on that CPU (load 38 to 47): a three-shard block proved shard by shard and aggregated by recursion, 19 min (1,139 s) end to end, 245 to 337 s per compressed shard proof, every proof verified. What is not there: no proof is produced, carried or checked on the chain (the devnet prover is a stub that signs claims), the proving pool pays nobody (row 21), the block proven is far below one shard, and the 60-second figure remains a design target; the pass mark is the standard in `docs/benchmarks/proving-e2e.md`. Second RTX 5090 run, 4 October 2026 evening (job run-20261004-173115): a full shard at the provisional S_p (6.75 M pgas, 60.8 M cycles) executed in 1.63 s, core proof 8.3 s (18.1 MB), compressed proof 10.9 s (1.27 MB, verify 0.040 s); a two-shard block (13.5 M pgas) proved shard by shard (11.7 s and 10.0 s) and aggregated in 2.2 s, 24 s of GPU stages end to end, every proof verified, six tampered witnesses rejected. The two host defects (an abort after the upload, an idle wait that turned out to be an unbuffered 18 MB proof save through the WSL2 file bridge, 24 minutes) are fixed (ledger P20) 5 October 2026, live devnet with real transactions (bench-log "real transactions, the first non-empty shard proven and paid"): block 72704 shard 0, 29 transfers, 5,800 pgas, proven on PC 2 in 34 s, verified on the Mac in 0.297 s and paid 1.7623 IGN, 53 s after the chain block executed; of about 1,400 blocks in the 20-minute window 36 were proven (the one prover takes the newest shard assigned to it), so "every block" is not yet true; a second content shard (72803, all copies skipped) failed the native-execution veto on the exporter's block structure, fixed with fixtures the same day, the node side pending the 0.3.9 rollout 5 October 2026, evening (bench-log "proving v1"): the aggregated segment record, the chain rule and the unproven rule are implemented behind `proving_v1_activation_daa` (branch proving-v1, not on the devnet before 0.3.11); on the RTX 5090 a chain of 8 consecutive live blocks proved and aggregated by recursion in 135.6 s with the miner on the card (17 s a block, one proof of 1,272,909 bytes attesting all 8, verified in 0.04 s); the 3-node fast-time harness paid a segment record 1.0 s after submission and refused a late one after its deadline (21 checks); the devnet itself, with one prover, carried proofs for 2.4% of blocks over 30 minutes at a block-to-record latency p50 44 s, p99 52 s. The "within about a minute" holds per proven block; "every block" needs 18 mining 5090s or 6 proving-only cards at empty blocks on the measured rates, and the mandatory rule stays off until the share is one | none yet |
|
||||
| 16 | A 12 GB card proves one shard in about 20 s (WITHDRAWN 5 October 2026: a 24 GB card proves a full shard at the adopted size in 4.3 s; 32 GB mines and proves) | Litepaper Proving ("The proving budget"); roadmap gate 2 | designed | spec 5.1 (Target), 7.6 (`S_p` provisional, 7,500,000 pgas = `B_p` / 4) | `PROVE-SHARD.bat` on the RTX 5090 (pending); the end-to-end standard in `docs/benchmarks/proving-e2e.md`; bench-log "proving: devnet v4 shards" | Measured on a 32 GB card, not yet on a 12 GB card. A shard at the provisional `S_p` is 60.8 M SP1 cycles on the prototype pgas table (9 cycles per pgas, 44 per EVM gas; the modexp entry about 100x its SP1 cost); on an RTX 5090 (4 October 2026 evening, job run-20261004-173115) it executed in 1.63 s and its compressed proof took 10.9 s, verified in 0.040 s, so the 32 GB card is inside the 20 s target with margin. Whether a 12 GB card proves it at all, and in what time, is the next measurement (an RTX 3060 and an RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB are on order). A per-shard time can be met by shrinking the shard, so the project does not use it as a pass mark 5 October 2026, evening (bench-log "proving v1", the S_p curve): measured on the RTX 5090 with SP1 6.8.1's GPU prover, the card to itself, 1-s nvidia-smi samples: an empty shard 13,874 MiB and 2.2 s; a full shard at the ADOPTED v1 budget (30,000 pgas, 4.7 M cycles) 20,434 MiB and 4.3 s; the full prototype shard (6.75 M pgas, 60 M cycles) 28,307 MiB and 10.8 s; beside the miner 15,670 and 30,039 MiB. No environment knob of SP1 moves the 13.9 GB floor and the GPU server has no options of its own, so on this build a 12 GB card proves nothing, a 16 GB card only empty shards, a 24 GB card the adopted full shard alone and beside the miner (22,210 MiB and 13.2 s, measured on the 32 GB card: the 5090's allocation pattern, not yet a run on a 24 GB card) and a 32 GB card the prototype shard beside the miner with 2.5 GB spare. The litepaper line now says so; the 12 GB gate returns when a prover build with a smaller floor is measured on a 12 GB card | none yet |
|
||||
| 17 | The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state) | the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line | tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured | `docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md` 5 and 6; `docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md`; `docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md`; `docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md`, `f4-weakday.md`, `docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md`; `docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md`; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; `docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md` (the internal adversarial pass) | the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses `tools/attack/f8-uniform` and the F4 census; the verifier by `igneum-pow bench` | 136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, PC 2's RTX 5090, PC 1's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 The k about 0.33 bound is the implied core of Bitmain's Antminer X9 (RandomX; 1,000 KH/s, 2,472 W, 2.47 J per KH, USD 5,600; pre-orders 26 December 2025), withdrawn in mid-May 2026 with buyers refunded before any unit shipped, no independent benchmark, commodity Sophgo SG2044 server SoCs with an AES accelerator, no tapeout: a claimed, unmeasured figure carried as the pessimistic bound, not a calibration point (attack pass AP-F5-1, 7 October 2026). | none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and the one outside check is staged and waits on its escrow and the publish word |
|
||||
| 17 | The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state) | the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line | tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured | `docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md` 5 and 6; `docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md`; `docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md`; `docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md`, `f4-weakday.md`, `docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md`; `docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md`; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; `docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md` (the internal adversarial pass) | the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses `tools/attack/f8-uniform` and the F4 census; the verifier by `igneum-pow bench` | 136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, PC 2's RTX 5090, PC 1's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 The k about 0.33 bound is the implied core of Bitmain's Antminer X9 (RandomX; 1,000 KH/s, 2,472 W, 2.47 J per KH, USD 5,600; pre-orders 26 December 2025), withdrawn in mid-May 2026 with buyers refunded before any unit shipped, no independent benchmark, commodity Sophgo SG2044 server SoCs with an AES accelerator, no tapeout: a claimed, unmeasured figure carried as the pessimistic bound, not a calibration point (attack pass AP-F5-1, 7 October 2026). | none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and no outside review has run yet |
|
||||
| 18 | The chip resistance measurements: the program is latency-bound (random reads), not bandwidth-bound, on every card we own, and sits beyond a card's on-chip cache | Litepaper Mining ("waits on memory latency, not on maths or bandwidth"), vs RandomX; the numbers page | tested by the team | readwidth e752fc7 (`docs/plans/read-width.md`), ca2-era 78c0ee4, ca2-cache 2de19e5 (`docs/plans/hot-table.md`) | The dependent-read probes at 32 to 1,024 MiB and the hash rate per class on the three cards; the latency-bound share = rate over the probe ceiling per load | Latency-bound share at the 1 GiB dataset: RTX 5090 0.96 (v2) and 1.01 (v3), RX 9070 XT 0.87 and 0.95, M5 Max 1.01 and 1.06; wider reads do not close the AMD gap (the 9070 XT does 2.4 G dependent reads per second at every width; the 5090 goes bandwidth-bound at 64 B, share 0.58); a 32 to 96 MiB hot table is not kept resident by any card while the dataset streams (g 0.80 to 0.87 in the added form). 5 October 2026 | none yet |
|
||||
| 19 | The lottery hash is sound as a hash: uniform output, deterministic, no out-of-bounds read, fuzzed; class v3 bit-exact on the three vendors | Litepaper vs RandomX ("Every number above is measured and logged"), the numbers page | tested by the team | ca2-mixer 1ab8b21 (`tests/mixer.rs`, `tests/scratch.rs`), ca2-era 78c0ee4, ca2-soundness a465881 (`docs/analysis/scratch-soundness.md`), `igneum-pow/tests/packs.rs` | The crate suite (53 + 4 + 19 + 7), the Metal fuzz, edge, stats and determinism runs on the v3 construction, the pack vectors and 2^24 fingerprints on Metal, Apple OpenCL, the RTX 5090 and the RX 9070 XT, the 1,024-hash CPU re-check per card | Class v3 (mixer x8 + era): 200-program fuzz 200 of 200 on Metal, every tenth on Apple OpenCL; the pinned v3 packs 3/3 + 3/3 and 96 of 96 lanes on Metal and Apple OpenCL; the six era packs' fingerprints equal on the three vendors (PC 1 job run-ca2-era-pc1-20261005, 5 October 2026); the v2 exports byte-identical on the v3 crate; the final-class PC rows and the G2 re-check: job run-ca2-era-pc1b-20261005 (pending at the time of writing) | none yet |
|
||||
| 20 | No premine, no pre-sale, no allocation: every coin is minted by the schedule and every coin goes to the block producer (80%) and the proving pool (20%) | Homepage stats and Economics tiles; litepaper Supply, Economics | implemented | repo `6ac80a3`; fork "igneum-node devnet v0"; `consensus/core/src/igneum.rs`, `coinbase.rs` | `cargo test -p kaspa-consensus-core igneum` (8 pass: subsidy table, ramp, split, cap) and `cargo test -p kaspa-consensus coinbase` (8 pass); `igneum-miner inspect 40`; bench-log "igneum-node devnet v0" | Coinbases on the devnet: 80/20 exact on 39 of 39 single-payee blocks, the 20% to the `igneum-proving-pool-v0` output; the per-second schedule sums to under the 4,000,000,000 cap by less than 100 coins; 3,168,808,781 units per DAA second in years 0 to 2, halving at 63,115,200 DAA s. 3 October 2026, Apple M5 Max. The devnet genesis carries no allocation; the mainnet genesis does not exist yet, so the claim is about the code and the stated rule, not a launch that has happened | none yet |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ The chip model. We price the strongest chip we can design against an RTX 5090 an
|
|||
| When a stored-dataset chip pays for itself | at about USD 100 M of market cap in the first two years, not before | modelled, 7 October 2026 |
|
||||
| The baseline the work started from: the same chip under class v3, without the shadow (the Ethash class) | 5x to 9x (5.1x on GDDR7, 9.2x on eight HBM3 stacks; the Ethash chips of this class reached 2.1x to 4.8x) | modelled, 6 October 2026; the precedent measured by others, 2020 to 2022; never the launch state |
|
||||
|
||||
What a miner sees from this. Class v4 costs a 5090 about 80 W more for 0.2 percent of rate, an M5 Max 16 W more for 1.5 percent, an RX 9070 XT and an RTX 4070 nothing (all measured, 6 October 2026). The ladder that sets how much work rides in the shadow starts at rung 0 at genesis and climbs by miner signal; its third rung is inadmissible today because a server core verifies it in 10.85 ms, over the gate (measured, 7 October 2026). On the devnet, which started on class v3, class v4 arrives by miner signal at a published height (a devnet fact, not a launch one). The next test of the model is an internal adversarial pass, not an independent review: three lanes that have never worked on the hash code attack the mixer, the chained cache and the acceptance rule with only what an outsider has (the public kit, the frozen object, the spec, the harnesses) and publish the break or the bound they reach. The one outside check is staged and waits on its escrow and the publish word.
|
||||
What a miner sees from this. Class v4 costs a 5090 about 80 W more for 0.2 percent of rate, an M5 Max 16 W more for 1.5 percent, an RX 9070 XT and an RTX 4070 nothing (all measured, 6 October 2026). The ladder that sets how much work rides in the shadow starts at rung 0 at genesis and climbs by miner signal; its third rung is inadmissible today because a server core verifies it in 10.85 ms, over the gate (measured, 7 October 2026). On the devnet, which started on class v3, class v4 arrives by miner signal at a published height (a devnet fact, not a launch one). The next test of the model is an internal adversarial pass, not an independent review: three lanes that have never worked on the hash code attack the mixer, the chained cache and the acceptance rule with only what an outsider has (the public kit, the frozen object, the spec, the harnesses) and publish the break or the bound they reach. No outside review has run yet.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. The miner page's line
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,4 +30,4 @@ Your card against the strongest chip we can price: an RTX 5090 at 136 MH/s on 35
|
|||
|
||||
| # | Claim | Where it is made | Status | Version or commit | Reproducible test | Result, date, machine | Independent verification |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 17 | The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state) | the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line | tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured | `docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md` 5 and 6; `docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md`; `docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md`; `docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md`, `f4-weakday.md`, `docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md`; `docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md`; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; `docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md` (the internal adversarial pass) | the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses `tools/attack/f8-uniform` and the F4 census; the verifier by `igneum-pow bench` | 136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, PC 2's RTX 5090, PC 1's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 | none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and the one outside check is staged and waits on its escrow and the publish word |
|
||||
| 17 | The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state) | the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line | tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured | `docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md` 5 and 6; `docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md`; `docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md`; `docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md`, `f4-weakday.md`, `docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md`; `docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md`; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; `docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md` (the internal adversarial pass) | the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses `tools/attack/f8-uniform` and the F4 census; the verifier by `igneum-pow bench` | 136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, PC 2's RTX 5090, PC 1's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 | none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and no outside review has run yet |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
|
|
@ -229,6 +229,10 @@
|
|||
<li><strong>A cryptography team.</strong> Not yet. One founder working with AI systems wrote the design and the code; external reviewers are named and paid before gate 3, and every security claim here is a design claim until then.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>Finality that no amount of hardware can break.</strong> No. A miner holding a third of the last 30 days of blocks can split finality during a network partition, and two thirds can lock a bad checkpoint for a double-spend bounded by the 12-hour finality depth. Reaching a third takes at least ten days of producing every block on the chain, in public; an attacker matching the honest network needs twenty days for a third and never reaches two thirds. That is harder than attacking Bitcoin, where a majority can reorganise at once, and it is the limit of proof of work without stake or an outside chain. Igneum chose those limits on purpose. The floor is also bounded in time: an honest partition that lasts long enough for each side's own new blocks to reach two thirds of its window locks on both sides, about ten days of a 30-day window at an even split, and an operator must then resolve it (measured on a test network, 4 October 2026).</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>Finality that never pauses.</strong> No. A lock needs two thirds of all 30-day mining weight. Whenever less than two thirds of that weight is connected and signing, finality pauses until it returns or ages out of the window, up to 30 days. The chain keeps running on proof of work and the node reports the pause.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A label that costs nothing.</strong> No. Some investors and exchanges read "GPU-mined" as 2021 whatever the proofs do, and nothing here measures that cost. The only evidence will be whether the first miner apps and verifiable-compute apps sign despite the label.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A chain you can debug today.</strong> Not yet. The node does not serve debug_traceTransaction, eth_subscribe or eth_getProof, and there is no public RPC, faucet or explorer for the devnet. They come in a fixed order (docs and templates, then the tracing and subscription RPCs, then a public RPC, listing and faucet, then the explorer) and no outside team is invited to build before the second step is done.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A veto on job results.</strong> No. A segment proof is checked against every node's own execution; a proving job for another chain is not, because no full node can re-run an arbitrary program, so a soundness bug in the proof system in force reaches the requesting contract. A job output can mint nothing and touch no system contract, and an app that acts irreversibly on a job result keeps its own fallback.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A delay function that outlives a quantum computer.</strong> No. The class-group delay between a locked checkpoint and the next program seed falls to the same machine that would forge the vote keys; it is flagged in the specification, not yet sized, and the fallback is a hash-chain delay behind the same version byte that moves the signature scheme, so both flip in one class change. A grindable hourly seed is a liveness nuisance against the lottery, not a break of finality.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A finished protocol.</strong> The sustained-mining finality rule is the newest piece and the one that external review will try hardest to break. The specification, the review and the benchmarks are published as they happen.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<p>Everything in this document is subject to the gates on the roadmap. Nothing in it is an offer to sell anything. Found an error, or a criticism this document does not answer? Email <a href="mailto:hello@igneum.network">hello@igneum.network</a>, or open an issue on the public specification repository: <a href="https://git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues" rel="noopener">git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues</a>. Post reaches Igneum Labs LTD, Unit IH-00-01-01-OF-01, Level 01, Innovation One, Dubai International Financial Centre.</p></div>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ td.mono{font-family:var(--f-mono);font-size:12.5px;min-width:180px}td.iv{color:v
|
|||
<tr data-status="tested by the team"><td class="n">14</td><td class="claim">Ethereum bytecode runs unchanged, with the documented differences of spec 7.1<div class="where">Homepage Build card; litepaper Building</div></td><td><span class="st st-2">tested by the team</span></td><td class="mono">as row 13; fixes <code>F-exec-A</code>, <code>F-exec-B</code> (spec 7.5)</td><td><code>tools/evm-smoke/smoke.mjs</code>: deploy via viem, <code>increment</code>, <code>hashLoop</code>, <code>eth_estimateGas</code>, <code>eth_getLogs</code>; <code>tools/exec-attacks</code> scenarios 1 and 3; bench-log "execution layer attack fixes"</td><td>Deployment, calls, reverts, logs and gas estimates behave as viem expects; chain id 4463; the prototype pgas table gives 0.0095 to 0.028 pgas per gas, below the design's band before calibration, 3 October 2026. 4 October 2026: a transaction that would cross the block's proving budget is refused by the mempool and, if forced in, aborted and charged with its nonce advanced (25 of 25 checks; 30 of 30 malformed cases). Apple M5 Max. The <code>Prover</code> precompile, proof records and the shard planner are not in the node</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="implemented"><td class="n">15</td><td class="claim">Every block is proven, with the proof landing within about a minute at launch<div class="where">Homepage stats ("~60 s to a proof"); litepaper Proving; roadmap phase 3 gate</div></td><td><span class="st st-1">implemented</span></td><td class="mono">repo <code>d7e1f89</code> (GPU proof), <code>e01a3cc</code>, <code>292e800</code>, <code>eedd136</code> (<code>proving/igneum-prove</code>: shard cutter, MPT witnesses, shard and aggregator guests); SP1 6.8.1; spec 7.2, 7.6</td><td><code>proving/windows-wsl2</code> (SETUP-PROVER, PROVE-BLOCK) on the RTX 5090; <code>igneum-prove-host --mode block</code> on <code>proving/fixtures/</code>; bench-log "proving v0 on the RTX 5090" and "proving: devnet v4 shards"</td><td>First GPU proof of an Igneum block, 4 October 2026, RTX 5090 (WSL2, SP1 cuda, mining paused): fixture <code>block-78-increment</code> (2 transactions), core proof 1.4 s (7.3 MB, verify 0.221 s), compressed proof 2.7 s (1.27 MB, verify 0.038 s), post-state and receipts roots identical to the node's; 15.7x and 20.6x faster than a loaded M5 Max CPU. The same day on that CPU (load 38 to 47): a three-shard block proved shard by shard and aggregated by recursion, 19 min (1,139 s) end to end, 245 to 337 s per compressed shard proof, every proof verified. What is not there: no proof is produced, carried or checked on the chain (the devnet prover is a stub that signs claims), the proving pool pays nobody (row 21), the block proven is far below one shard, and the 60-second figure remains a design target; the pass mark is the standard in <code>docs/benchmarks/proving-e2e.md</code>. Second RTX 5090 run, 4 October 2026 evening (job run-20261004-173115): a full shard at the provisional S_p (6.75 M pgas, 60.8 M cycles) executed in 1.63 s, core proof 8.3 s (18.1 MB), compressed proof 10.9 s (1.27 MB, verify 0.040 s); a two-shard block (13.5 M pgas) proved shard by shard (11.7 s and 10.0 s) and aggregated in 2.2 s, 24 s of GPU stages end to end, every proof verified, six tampered witnesses rejected. The two host defects (an abort after the upload, an idle wait that turned out to be an unbuffered 18 MB proof save through the WSL2 file bridge, 24 minutes) are fixed (ledger P20) 5 October 2026, live devnet with real transactions (bench-log "real transactions, the first non-empty shard proven and paid"): block 72704 shard 0, 29 transfers, 5,800 pgas, proven on the RTX 5090 Windows rig in 34 s, verified on the Apple M5 Max in 0.297 s and paid 1.7623 IGN, 53 s after the chain block executed; of about 1,400 blocks in the 20-minute window 36 were proven (the one prover takes the newest shard assigned to it), so "every block" is not yet true; a second content shard (72803, all copies skipped) failed the native-execution veto on the exporter's block structure, fixed with fixtures the same day, the node side pending the 0.3.9 rollout 5 October 2026, evening (bench-log "proving v1"): the aggregated segment record, the chain rule and the unproven rule are implemented behind <code>proving_v1_activation_daa</code> (branch proving-v1, not on the devnet before 0.3.11); on the RTX 5090 a chain of 8 consecutive live blocks proved and aggregated by recursion in 135.6 s with the miner on the card (17 s a block, one proof of 1,272,909 bytes attesting all 8, verified in 0.04 s); the 3-node fast-time harness paid a segment record 1.0 s after submission and refused a late one after its deadline (21 checks); the devnet itself, with one prover, carried proofs for 2.4% of blocks over 30 minutes at a block-to-record latency p50 44 s, p99 52 s. The "within about a minute" holds per proven block; "every block" needs 18 mining 5090s or 6 proving-only cards at empty blocks on the measured rates, and the mandatory rule stays off until the share is one</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="designed"><td class="n">16</td><td class="claim">A 12 GB card proves one shard in about 20 s (WITHDRAWN 5 October 2026: a 24 GB card proves a full shard at the adopted size in 4.3 s; 32 GB mines and proves)<div class="where">Litepaper Proving ("The proving budget"); roadmap gate 2</div></td><td><span class="st st-0">designed</span></td><td class="mono">spec 5.1 (Target), 7.6 (<code>S_p</code> provisional, 7,500,000 pgas = <code>B_p</code> / 4)</td><td><code>PROVE-SHARD.bat</code> on the RTX 5090 (pending); the end-to-end standard in <code>docs/benchmarks/proving-e2e.md</code>; bench-log "proving: devnet v4 shards"</td><td>Measured on a 32 GB card, not yet on a 12 GB card. A shard at the provisional <code>S_p</code> is 60.8 M SP1 cycles on the prototype pgas table (9 cycles per pgas, 44 per EVM gas; the modexp entry about 100x its SP1 cost); on an RTX 5090 (4 October 2026 evening, job run-20261004-173115) it executed in 1.63 s and its compressed proof took 10.9 s, verified in 0.040 s, so the 32 GB card is inside the 20 s target with margin. Whether a 12 GB card proves it at all, and in what time, is the next measurement (an RTX 3060 and an RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB are on order). A per-shard time can be met by shrinking the shard, so the project does not use it as a pass mark 5 October 2026, evening (bench-log "proving v1", the S_p curve): measured on the RTX 5090 with SP1 6.8.1's GPU prover, the card to itself, 1-s nvidia-smi samples: an empty shard 13,874 MiB and 2.2 s; a full shard at the ADOPTED v1 budget (30,000 pgas, 4.7 M cycles) 20,434 MiB and 4.3 s; the full prototype shard (6.75 M pgas, 60 M cycles) 28,307 MiB and 10.8 s; beside the miner 15,670 and 30,039 MiB. No environment knob of SP1 moves the 13.9 GB floor and the GPU server has no options of its own, so on this build a 12 GB card proves nothing, a 16 GB card only empty shards, a 24 GB card the adopted full shard alone and beside the miner (22,210 MiB and 13.2 s, measured on the 32 GB card: the 5090's allocation pattern, not yet a run on a 24 GB card) and a 32 GB card the prototype shard beside the miner with 2.5 GB spare. The litepaper line now says so; the 12 GB gate returns when a prover build with a smaller floor is measured on a 12 GB card</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="designed"><td class="n">17</td><td class="claim">The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state)<div class="where">the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line</div></td><td><span class="st st-0">tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured</span></td><td class="mono"><code>docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md</code> 5 and 6; <code>docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md</code>; <code>docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md</code>; <code>docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md</code>, <code>f4-weakday.md</code>, <code>docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md</code>; <code>docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md</code>; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; <code>docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md</code> (the internal adversarial pass)</td><td>the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses <code>tools/attack/f8-uniform</code> and the F4 census; the verifier by <code>igneum-pow bench</code></td><td>136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, the RTX 5090 Windows rig's RTX 5090, the three-card Windows rig's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 The k about 0.33 bound is the implied core of Bitmain's Antminer X9 (RandomX; 1,000 KH/s, 2,472 W, 2.47 J per KH, USD 5,600; pre-orders 26 December 2025), withdrawn in mid-May 2026 with buyers refunded before any unit shipped, no independent benchmark, commodity Sophgo SG2044 server SoCs with an AES accelerator, no tapeout: a claimed, unmeasured figure carried as the pessimistic bound, not a calibration point (attack pass AP-F5-1, 7 October 2026).</td><td class="iv">none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and the one outside check is staged and waits on its escrow and the publish word</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="designed"><td class="n">17</td><td class="claim">The chip resistance claim: at launch the strongest chip in the public model reaches 2.1x (a core as good as a GPU lane, k = 1) to 3.4x (a core three times better, k about 0.33) per joule against an RTX 5090 under class v4, live from genesis on the testnet and the mainnet; the ladder's second rung brings it to about 2.8x; class v5 makes the dataset the chain's state so a stateless or stale chip is wrong on every item; the hot-set cache is bounded at 1.067x at the ceiling and the weak-day FPGA at 12 percent on 15 days a century, both routed to the next class; datacentre silicon does not change the question; a stored-dataset chip pays for itself only at about USD 100 M of market cap in two years; without class v4 the same chip would reach 5x to 9x (the class v3 baseline, the devnet's starting state, never the launch state)<div class="where">the home page's chip line, the litepaper's chip section (/litepaper#chip-model), the miner page's line</div></td><td><span class="st st-0">tested by the team (every card, the verifier, the two attack-pass bounds, the H100), the chip itself modelled, class v5 and the ladder designed, the X9 figure claimed against a CPU core and never measured</span></td><td class="mono"><code>docs/analysis/chip-model-v3.md</code> 5 and 6; <code>docs/analysis/latency-shadow-2026-10-06.md</code>; <code>docs/plans/counter-asic-3-status.md</code>; <code>docs/analysis/attack-pass/f8-uniform.md</code>, <code>f4-weakday.md</code>, <code>docs/analysis/ca3-v4-uniform.md</code>; <code>docs/design/class-v5-stored-state.md</code>; the H100 and market-cap rows of 7 October; <code>docs/plans/cryptanalysis/in-house-pass.md</code> (the internal adversarial pass)</td><td>the chip model's arithmetic in its file; the card rows by the benchmark package; the attack-pass harnesses <code>tools/attack/f8-uniform</code> and the F4 census; the verifier by <code>igneum-pow bench</code></td><td>136 MH/s at 350 W (5090, bench) and 290 W (app); 27 MH/s at 21 W (M5 Max); 249 MH/s (H100 SXM) at 98 percent of its read ceiling, 1.78x hash, 1.15x MH/W, a third per rented dollar; 2.33 ms per warp; 2.1x, 3.4x, 2.8x at launch; the shadow's premium on a 5090 81.8 W at its knee (class v4 at the 1,200 MHz lock 133.80 MH/s at 305.1 W; class v3 at 1,300 MHz 134.62 at 223.3 W; 7 October 2026); 1.067x at the ceiling; 12 percent on 15 days a century; 10.85 ms at rung 3; USD 100 M; 5.1x to 9.2x the class v3 baseline; 6 and 7 October 2026, the M5 Max, the RTX 5090 Windows rig's RTX 5090, the three-card Windows rig's RX 9070 XT and RTX 4070, a rented H100 SXM, igneum-build-1 The k about 0.33 bound is the implied core of Bitmain's Antminer X9 (RandomX; 1,000 KH/s, 2,472 W, 2.47 J per KH, USD 5,600; pre-orders 26 December 2025), withdrawn in mid-May 2026 with buyers refunded before any unit shipped, no independent benchmark, commodity Sophgo SG2044 server SoCs with an AES accelerator, no tapeout: a claimed, unmeasured figure carried as the pessimistic bound, not a calibration point (attack pass AP-F5-1, 7 October 2026).</td><td class="iv">none yet; the next test is the internal adversarial pass (three lanes new to the hash code, outsider inputs only, reports published whole), and no outside review has run yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="tested by the team"><td class="n">18</td><td class="claim">The chip resistance measurements: the program is latency-bound (random reads), not bandwidth-bound, on every card we own, and sits beyond a card's on-chip cache<div class="where">Litepaper Mining ("waits on memory latency, not on maths or bandwidth"), vs RandomX; the numbers page</div></td><td><span class="st st-2">tested by the team</span></td><td class="mono">readwidth e752fc7 (<code>docs/plans/read-width.md</code>), ca2-era 78c0ee4, ca2-cache 2de19e5 (<code>docs/plans/hot-table.md</code>)</td><td>The dependent-read probes at 32 to 1,024 MiB and the hash rate per class on the three cards; the latency-bound share = rate over the probe ceiling per load</td><td>Latency-bound share at the 1 GiB dataset: RTX 5090 0.96 (v2) and 1.01 (v3), RX 9070 XT 0.87 and 0.95, M5 Max 1.01 and 1.06; wider reads do not close the AMD gap (the 9070 XT does 2.4 G dependent reads per second at every width; the 5090 goes bandwidth-bound at 64 B, share 0.58); a 32 to 96 MiB hot table is not kept resident by any card while the dataset streams (g 0.80 to 0.87 in the added form). 5 October 2026</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="tested by the team"><td class="n">19</td><td class="claim">The lottery hash is sound as a hash: uniform output, deterministic, no out-of-bounds read, fuzzed; class v3 bit-exact on the three vendors<div class="where">Litepaper vs RandomX ("Every number above is measured and logged"), the numbers page</div></td><td><span class="st st-2">tested by the team</span></td><td class="mono">ca2-mixer 1ab8b21 (<code>tests/mixer.rs</code>, <code>tests/scratch.rs</code>), ca2-era 78c0ee4, ca2-soundness a465881 (<code>docs/analysis/scratch-soundness.md</code>), <code>igneum-pow/tests/packs.rs</code></td><td>The crate suite (53 + 4 + 19 + 7), the Metal fuzz, edge, stats and determinism runs on the v3 construction, the pack vectors and 2^24 fingerprints on Metal, Apple OpenCL, the RTX 5090 and the RX 9070 XT, the 1,024-hash CPU re-check per card</td><td>Class v3 (mixer x8 + era): 200-program fuzz 200 of 200 on Metal, every tenth on Apple OpenCL; the pinned v3 packs 3/3 + 3/3 and 96 of 96 lanes on Metal and Apple OpenCL; the six era packs' fingerprints equal on the three vendors (the three-card Windows rig (RTX 5090, RTX 4070, RX 9070 XT) job run-ca2-era-pc1-20261005, 5 October 2026); the v2 exports byte-identical on the v3 crate; the final-class PC rows and the G2 re-check: job run-ca2-era-pc1b-20261005 (pending at the time of writing)</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr data-status="implemented"><td class="n">20</td><td class="claim">No premine, no pre-sale, no allocation: every coin is minted by the schedule and every coin goes to the block producer (80%) and the proving pool (20%)<div class="where">Homepage stats and Economics tiles; litepaper Supply, Economics</div></td><td><span class="st st-1">implemented</span></td><td class="mono">repo <code>6ac80a3</code>; fork "igneum-node devnet v0"; <code>consensus/core/src/igneum.rs</code>, <code>coinbase.rs</code></td><td><code>cargo test -p kaspa-consensus-core igneum</code> (8 pass: subsidy table, ramp, split, cap) and <code>cargo test -p kaspa-consensus coinbase</code> (8 pass); <code>igneum-miner inspect 40</code>; bench-log "igneum-node devnet v0"</td><td>Coinbases on the devnet: 80/20 exact on 39 of 39 single-payee blocks, the 20% to the <code>igneum-proving-pool-v0</code> output; the per-second schedule sums to under the 4,000,000,000 cap by less than 100 coins; 3,168,808,781 units per DAA second in years 0 to 2, halving at 63,115,200 DAA s. 3 October 2026, Apple M5 Max. The devnet genesis carries no allocation; the mainnet genesis does not exist yet, so the claim is about the code and the stated rule, not a launch that has happened</td><td class="iv">none yet</td></tr>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -38,3 +38,8 @@ disclosure prize
|
|||
# the rig names never reach a served page (verification lane, 7 October 2026: a substring grep read "PC 2" inside gRPC port numbers; this is the word-bounded check)
|
||||
\bPC [12]\b
|
||||
counsel is engaged
|
||||
# 7 October 2026 (main's rule): the one outside check is never hinted at before its time; the phrase class, not the bare words (the proving pool's escrow and a staged build are ordinary)
|
||||
outside check
|
||||
waits on its escrow
|
||||
staged and waits
|
||||
the publish word
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
<tr><td>When a stored-dataset chip pays for itself</td><td>at about USD 100 M of market cap in the first two years, not before</td><td>modelled, 7 October 2026</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>The baseline the work started from: the same chip under class v3, without the shadow (the Ethash class)</td><td>5x to 9x (5.1x on GDDR7, 9.2x on eight HBM3 stacks; the Ethash chips of this class reached 2.1x to 4.8x)</td><td>modelled, 6 October 2026; the precedent measured by others, 2020 to 2022; never the launch state</td></tr>
|
||||
</tbody></table></div>
|
||||
<p>What a miner sees from this. Class v4 costs a 5090 145 W more unlocked, 88 W more at a 1,400 MHz core lock and 82 W at the best operating points (class v4 at 1,200 MHz, class v3 at 1,300; the knee is 1,300 MHz on both), for 0.2 percent more rate (measured, 7 October 2026; the 80 W read on 6 October was at the app's tuned cap); an M5 Max 16 W more for 1.5 percent, an RX 9070 XT and an RTX 4070 nothing (measured, 6 October 2026). The ladder that sets how much work rides in the shadow starts at rung 0 at genesis and climbs by miner signal; its third rung is inadmissible today because a server core verifies it in 10.85 ms, over the gate (measured, 7 October 2026). Devnet 3 runs class v4 from its first block (7 October 2026); the first devnet started on class v3 and reaches class v4 by miner signal at a published height. The next test of the model is an internal adversarial pass, not an independent review: three lanes that have never worked on the hash code attack the mixer, the chained cache and the acceptance rule with only what an outsider has (the public kit, the frozen object, the spec, the harnesses) and publish the break or the bound they reach. The one outside check is staged and waits on its escrow and the publish word.</p>
|
||||
<p>What a miner sees from this. Class v4 costs a 5090 145 W more unlocked, 88 W more at a 1,400 MHz core lock and 82 W at the best operating points (class v4 at 1,200 MHz, class v3 at 1,300; the knee is 1,300 MHz on both), for 0.2 percent more rate (measured, 7 October 2026; the 80 W read on 6 October was at the app's tuned cap); an M5 Max 16 W more for 1.5 percent, an RX 9070 XT and an RTX 4070 nothing (measured, 6 October 2026). The ladder that sets how much work rides in the shadow starts at rung 0 at genesis and climbs by miner signal; its third rung is inadmissible today because a server core verifies it in 10.85 ms, over the gate (measured, 7 October 2026). Devnet 3 runs class v4 from its first block (7 October 2026); the first devnet started on class v3 and reaches class v4 by miner signal at a published height. The next test of the model is an internal adversarial pass, not an independent review: three lanes that have never worked on the hash code attack the mixer, the chained cache and the acceptance rule with only what an outsider has (the public kit, the frozen object, the spec, the harnesses) and publish the break or the bound they reach. No outside review has run yet.</p>
|
||||
<p>No hash has stayed free of chips forever. Igneum does not claim to. It states the gain its own model finds, the response takes a week, and both are measured. The model is public: <a href="/bench#counter-asic-2-0-the-numbers">the numbers</a>; the claim is tested by the in-house adversarial pass and the public benchmark. Monero has run on RandomX since 2019 (approximate) with no chip shipped. Bitmain opened Antminer X9 pre-orders on 26 December 2025 for July 2026 delivery, then withdrew the product in mid-May 2026 and refunded buyers before any unit shipped; none has been independently benchmarked. A box with about a 2x per joule edge over the best CPUs, and about 3x over a desktop, was withdrawn rather than face a RandomX re-tune of 1.5x or more. That is the band Igneum’s class v4 model sits in (2.1x to 3.4x over an RTX 5090), and the defence that held was a maintained algorithm with a credible upgrade path, which is what the ladder is.</p>
|
||||
<p>One thing takes a person, here and on every chain that exists: writing new code. A chain cannot safely write its own generator, and it cannot safely tell a chip from a wave of honest new cards by hashrate alone. If the design above ever failed, anyone could publish a new generator and miners would switch it on by signalling, as Monero's community can fork. Igneum is built to make that day unlikely, and does not depend on avoiding it.</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue