Evidence row 17: the class v4 efficiency passes on both cards from the bench log's entry (the 5090's knee, best points and premium; the RTX 5080's clock-lock pass of 8 October 2026 with its per-tier reading); a what-moved table for 8 October; /evidence rebuilt
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs
parent
6185148dcf
commit
5c2621b413
2 changed files with 10 additions and 4 deletions
|
|
@ -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 no outside review has run 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); the class v4 efficiency passes (bench log "7 to 8 October 2026, the class v4 efficiency passes: the core clock lock on the RTX 5090 and the RTX 5080", measured): the 5090 at 136.84 MH/s and 475.5 W unlocked, 134.98 at 316.3 W at a 1,400 MHz core lock, the best points class v4 at 1,200 MHz (133.80 MH/s, 305.1 W, 0.439 MH/W) and class v3 at 1,300 MHz (134.62, 223.3 W, 0.603), the premium 145 W unlocked and 82 W at the best points, the knee 1,300 MHz; the RTX 5080 (8 October 2026, the dock card of the three-card Windows rig) at 71.41 MH/s and 253.1 W unlocked under class v4 against 71.28 at 169.7 W under class v3, the best points class v4 at 1,100 MHz (71.20 MH/s, 146.6 W, 0.486 MH/W) and class v3 at 1,000 MHz (71.11, 103.7 W, 0.686), the premium 83.4 W unlocked and 41 W at the best points, the knee between 1,000 and 900 MHz; per tier: a 5080 owner on class v4 locked near 1,100 MHz pays 147 W instead of 253 for 0.3 percent less rate, MH per watt up 72 percent, the lever Ember Tune's core-clock knob in 0.3.24; 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 |
|
||||
|
|
@ -98,6 +98,12 @@ Versions in the table: `igneum-pow` is the Rust crate at `igneum-pow/Cargo.toml`
|
|||
| 17 | 136 MH/s at 350 W (class v3) | the class v4 efficiency pass added: 136.84 MH/s at 475.5 W unlocked, 134.98 MH/s at 316.3 W locked, control 134.68 MH/s at 228.0 W | the 5090 efficiency pass |
|
||||
| rule 1 | "the repository is private until the public testnet" | the ceiling is stated without the repository's state | the repository links moved to git.igneum.network |
|
||||
|
||||
## What moved on 8 October 2026
|
||||
|
||||
| Row | Before | After | Why |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 17 | the 5090's efficiency pass | the RTX 5080's clock-lock pass beside it (71.41 MH/s at 253.1 W unlocked, 71.20 at 146.6 W at 1,100 MHz, the premium 83.4 W to 41 W) and the per-tier reading | the bench log's efficiency-passes entry |
|
||||
|
||||
## What would move a row
|
||||
|
||||
| From | To | What it takes |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ td.mono{font-family:var(--f-mono);font-size:12.5px;min-width:180px}td.iv{color:v
|
|||
<main id="main" class="wrap">
|
||||
<div class="head">
|
||||
<div class="breadcrumb"><a href="/">Igneum</a><span>/</span><span>Evidence</span></div>
|
||||
<div class="eyebrow"><span class="line"></span>31 claims · 5 labels · 7 Oct 2026</div>
|
||||
<div class="eyebrow"><span class="line"></span>31 claims · 5 labels · 8 Oct 2026</div>
|
||||
<h1>Evidence<span class="accent">.</span></h1>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<p class="note">Every claim the homepage and the litepaper make, one row each, with one of five labels: <b>designed</b> (a decision, no code), <b>implemented</b> (code with passing test vectors), <b>tested by the team</b> (measured by the project on a named machine, in the engineering log), <b>reproduced externally</b> (a third party ran the published command and got the published result) and <b>reviewed independently</b> (a named outside reviewer published a finding on that version). Nothing on this chain has been reproduced externally or reviewed independently; every row says so. A label belongs to the exact version in the row, and an audit of one version never covers a newer one. The 12-node cloud network of 4 October 2026 is the project's own, so its rows are tested by the team, not reproduced externally.</p>
|
||||
|
|
@ -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 no outside review has run 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); the class v4 efficiency passes (bench log "7 to 8 October 2026, the class v4 efficiency passes: the core clock lock on the RTX 5090 and the RTX 5080", measured): the 5090 at 136.84 MH/s and 475.5 W unlocked, 134.98 at 316.3 W at a 1,400 MHz core lock, the best points class v4 at 1,200 MHz (133.80 MH/s, 305.1 W, 0.439 MH/W) and class v3 at 1,300 MHz (134.62, 223.3 W, 0.603), the premium 145 W unlocked and 82 W at the best points, the knee 1,300 MHz; the RTX 5080 (8 October 2026, the dock card of the three-card Windows rig) at 71.41 MH/s and 253.1 W unlocked under class v4 against 71.28 at 169.7 W under class v3, the best points class v4 at 1,100 MHz (71.20 MH/s, 146.6 W, 0.486 MH/W) and class v3 at 1,000 MHz (71.11, 103.7 W, 0.686), the premium 83.4 W unlocked and 41 W at the best points, the knee between 1,000 and 900 MHz; per tier: a 5080 owner on class v4 locked near 1,100 MHz pays 147 W instead of 253 for 0.3 percent less rate, MH per watt up 72 percent, the lever Ember Tune's core-clock knob in 0.3.24; 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>
|
||||
|
|
@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ td.mono{font-family:var(--f-mono);font-size:12.5px;min-width:180px}td.iv{color:v
|
|||
<tr><td>reproduced externally</td><td>reviewed independently</td><td>A named reviewer's published finding on that version. Funding for review is <code>docs/plans/funding.md</code></td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>any</td><td>the row's status falls back</td><td>A new version of the code or rule the row names</td></tr>
|
||||
</tbody></table></div>
|
||||
<p class="asof">Statuses are honest as of 7 October 2026, the day this page was generated from docs/evidence.md, and change only through that file.</p>
|
||||
<p class="asof">Statuses are honest as of 8 October 2026, the day this page was generated from docs/evidence.md, and change only through that file.</p>
|
||||
</main>
|
||||
<!-- footer:start -->
|
||||
<footer class="site-footer">
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue