Class v6 history lane, revision 2: the synthesis lane's reading of the six items folded in, lane B's hardware file cross-cited

docs/analysis/class-v6/history.md: layer 2's open ceiling question replaced by the synthesis lane's resolution (the per-year ceiling as layer 2's first constant, the schedule's power-of-two step for the year; the state brings a step forward and never adds one), with the Ethereum-state figure kept as the reason the ceiling exists; the read-width rank reworded on the measured warrant (w16 latency-bound within 2.7 percent on the 5090 and the 9070 XT, within 1 percent on the M5 Max; the band is {4 B, 16 B}, nothing wider); the Jasminer X4 finding cross-cited to lane B's hybrid-bonded DRAM row (hardware-future.md 4.4, 13x to 17x modelled) as that row's shipped precedent at 5x on a planar node; the header records the 11:26 UK landing (eb71eaf3). No number changes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/analysis/class-v6/history.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 8 October 2026, branch `class-v6-history`, the Counter ASIC coordinator's history lane. The founder's word at 11:1x UK: class v6 is declared with four layers as its spine, and the research opens "see if anything can be optimised, added or invented". This file extends and corrects `docs/analysis/asic-resistance-history.md` (5 October 2026, the deep dive: 31 rows, 24 papers, ten lessons, seven ranked additions); it does not repeat that file's rows. What is new here: the exact MECHANISM of every chip (what it specialised: the memory, the hash core, the instruction mix, the parameter fixity), what each design missed, the timeline from announcement to chip to response, and for each one the mapping to class v6's four layers with "does v6 close it" in one sentence and one number. Every figure about another chain cites a URL with the date it was read, or is labelled approximate. Every Igneum figure names the repo file. Reading public research is in-house; nothing is paid or asked of anyone outside.
 
-First cut landed before 15:00 UK on 8 October (the table, the mechanisms, the three lessons); the full report by 09:00 UK on 9 October. A line goes to the coordinator and to the synthesis lane at each landing.
+First cut landed on the mirror's master at 11:26 UK on 8 October (merge 4c58ad65: the table, the mechanisms, the three lessons), ahead of the 15:00 clock; this revision folds in the synthesis lane's reading of the six items (`docs/design/class-v6-rotating-family.md` section 7b) and cross-cites lane B's hardware file; the full report by 09:00 UK on 9 October carries any row the other lanes move. A line goes to the coordinator and to the synthesis lane at each landing.
 
 ## 0. One page
 
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ First cut landed before 15:00 UK on 8 October (the table, the mechanisms, the th
 2. **Automatic change beats the human fork only where it costs the chip a redesign, and the one parameter that does is the memory.** Grin's six-monthly tweaks held because each was a new algorithm the lane was scheduled to retire; Monero's forks lost on the second lap; Ethash's DAG growth is the one scheduled change in the record that killed a shipped chip (the E3, when the DAG passed its 4 GB of DDR3). Layer 2 is that lesson made a rule, and its rate decides everything: at 2 GiB plus 0.5 GiB a year a 32 GB chip board outlives the chain, so layer 2 as declared ages out the honest 8 GB card before any chip unless the floor is set against DRAM cost per gigabyte, not against chain state.
 3. **A steered or biased address pattern is always found after launch unless the test lives in the acceptance rule, and every new draw needs its own null.** ProgPoW's seed, MTP's blocks and class v4's lossy sources were the same attack three times; layer 4 puts the test where it must be, and its cost is one census per era draw on the node (2.2 s per candidate at 2^20 today) with the null re-derived for every drawn parameter, because the window model that defines "uniform" changes with the read width and the program length.
 
-**What the history says to add** (section 5): the issuance clock and the share-pattern detector (unchanged from the 5 October ranking, still unbuilt); a layer 2 floor stated in DRAM dollars; the read width kept out of the era draw unless a width other than 4 bytes is measured latency-bound on every vendor; the reserve ordered by what a sequencer chip cannot fold into firmware.
+**What the history says to add** (section 5): a layer 2 floor and a per-tier ceiling stated before its rate (the synthesis lane has since made the ceiling layer 2's first constant); the issuance clock and the share-pattern detector (unchanged from the 5 October ranking, still unbuilt); the read width's draw band stopped where the honest card stops being latency-bound ({4 B, 16 B} on the measured warrant, nothing wider); the op-mix band bounded by the per-vendor energy table; the reserve ordered by what a sequencer chip cannot fold into firmware.
 
 ## 1. The chips, one row per mechanism
 
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ One section per proof of work. Each carries the mechanism, the miss, the timelin
 
 **The timeline.** Hash live July 2015; the E3 at 32 months (announced) and 36 (shipped); the first chip over 2x at 65 months (Linzhi, December 2020); 5x at 75 months (Jasminer, October 2021); the Merge at 86 (15 September 2022). The E3's death by DAG growth: Classic first, at epoch 328 (DAG about 3.56 GB, March 2020), then Ethereum, with a 30 March 2020 firmware stretching the DDR to about block 11.4 million (about October 2020): 20 to 27 months after shipping. Ethereum's responses: Zamfir's April 2018 poll (57 percent for an anti-chip fork); EIP-1057 created 2 May 2018, a 93 percent community vote in April 2019, audits delivered September 2019, "accepted" on 21 February 2020, EIP-2538's opposition on 25 February, then stagnant; the share claim in the EIP's own text: "as much as 40 percent of the Ethereum network may now be secured by ASICs" (undated inside a 2018 to 2020 document; no year-by-year series exists). After the Merge: Classic's hashrate went 64 to 183 TH/s in one day; today Classic reads 129.9 TH/s and ETHW 2.15; at USD 0.10 per kWh every Ethash chip in the table loses money (E9 Pro minus USD 5.28 a day), and a later wave (iPollo V1 3.6 GH/s at 3,100 W, June 2022; Jasminer X16-P 5.8 GH/s at 1,900 W, August 2023) holds Classic (https://hashrateindex.com/blog/how-much-ethereum-mining-hashrate-can-other-blockchains-absorb/ ; https://2miners.com/etc-network-hashrate ; read 8 October 2026).
 
-**The mapping to v6.** Ethash is class C in full, and its chips are the f = 1 chip of `chip-model-v3.md` section 5 at three points on the packaging ladder: commodity DRAM on a board (E3, E9: 1x to 4x), memory sized and placed per chip (Linzhi: 2x), DRAM bonded to the logic (Jasminer: 5x, the model's HBM3 row). None of v6's four layers touches a chip of this class: the program, the mixer, the op mix, the family schedule and the acceptance floor are all firmware or configuration to a controller that stores the dataset; the only layer that reaches it is layer 2, and only when the dataset passes the chip's board, which at 2 GiB plus 0.5 GiB a year is year 60 for a 32 GB board (section 4.2). Does v6 close it: **no**. The number: 5.1x per joule on GDDR7 and 7.5x on one HBM3 stack at zero premium against the 5090 unlocked, 3.6x at the 5090's 1,300 MHz knee, 2.1x at the knee with the class v4 shadow at k = 1 (`counter-asic-4-research.md` section 0); the history's measured band for exactly this chip class is 1.0x (E3) to 5.1x (Jasminer), and Jasminer's number is the model's HBM-class row reached in 2021 on a 40 nm logic die. The one thing Igneum has that Ethash did not: the honest card is latency-bound at 4-byte reads, not bandwidth-bound at 128, so the chip's energy per read is the activate's 909 pJ plus a 32-byte atom (2.0 nJ on GDDR7 against the card's measured 8.7 to 10.9 nJ marginal), which is where the 5.1x comes from, and the shadow is the only term on the card's side of that ratio.
+**The mapping to v6.** Ethash is class C in full, and its chips are the f = 1 chip of `chip-model-v3.md` section 5 at three points on the packaging ladder: commodity DRAM on a board (E3, E9: 1x to 4x), memory sized and placed per chip (Linzhi: 2x), DRAM bonded to the logic (Jasminer: 5x, the model's HBM3 row). None of v6's four layers touches a chip of this class: the program, the mixer, the op mix, the family schedule and the acceptance floor are all firmware or configuration to a controller that stores the dataset; the only layer that reaches it is layer 2, and only when the dataset passes the chip's board, which at 2 GiB plus 0.5 GiB a year is year 60 for a 32 GB board (section 4.2). Does v6 close it: **no**. The number: 5.1x per joule on GDDR7 and 7.5x on one HBM3 stack at zero premium against the 5090 unlocked, 3.6x at the 5090's 1,300 MHz knee, 2.1x at the knee with the class v4 shadow at k = 1 (`counter-asic-4-research.md` section 0); the history's measured band for exactly this chip class is 1.0x (E3) to 5.1x (Jasminer), and Jasminer's number is the model's HBM-class row reached in 2021 on a 40 nm logic die. The forward line of the same mechanism is lane B's (`docs/analysis/class-v6/hardware-future.md`, master 34f63b3c, section 4.4 and its table row for fine-grained hybrid-bonded DRAM on logic: 13x to 17x per joule at zero shadow, modelled, on the 2028 to 2030 roadmaps); the Jasminer X4 is that row's shipped precedent, five years early and at 5x on a planar node, which is the reason to read lane B's 13x to 17x as a ceiling a first product will not reach and a second one will approach. The one thing Igneum has that Ethash did not: the honest card is latency-bound at 4-byte reads, not bandwidth-bound at 128, so the chip's energy per read is the activate's 909 pJ plus a 32-byte atom (2.0 nJ on GDDR7 against the card's measured 8.7 to 10.9 nJ marginal), which is where the 5.1x comes from, and the shadow is the only term on the card's side of that ratio.
 
 ### 2.3 RandomX (Monero, 30 November 2019): the chips, RandomX v2, and the X9's withdrawal
 
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ The arithmetic that binds. A chip's memory is bought by the board, and today's p
 | 24 GB | 44 | one HBM3 stack; the 4090 and the M5 Max class |
 | 32 GB | 60 | the f = 1 GDDR7 chip's board; the 5090 |
 
-So layer 2 as a rate "tracking chain state" ages out fixed-memory silicon only if the dataset grows faster than a chip generation's memory headroom, and every rate that does that retires the honest small cards first by the same table. The E3 is the only case in the record where a growth rule beat a chip, and it beat a chip that had under-provisioned memory by a factor the card fleet also hit (4 GB). The rule that would hurt the f = 1 chip is one that keeps the dataset above what one board of commodity DRAM holds at the chip's price point, and that rule is unaffordable for the honest fleet. The honest reading: layer 2 is the right lever class (the memory is the one parameter a stored-dataset chip cannot read as firmware), and its value is set by the floor and the ceiling, not by the tracking: a floor keeps the dataset above every SRAM die (class B stays closed: 2 GiB is 1,000 mm^2 of SRAM even at N5), and a ceiling keeps it under the honest tiers' memory. Between those two lines the chip's board holds whatever the card holds, and the growth rate changes nothing for it. What "tracking chain state" adds over the fixed schedule is governance (no release decides the size) and the class v5 link (the dataset is built from the state, so the size follows the state's record count naturally); it is not an anti-chip rate. Open for the synthesis lane: if the chain's state grows the way Ethereum's did (approximate, from memory: Ethereum's account and storage state passed 100 GB in its eighth year), a dataset that tracks it literally outgrows every consumer card inside the chain's first decade, so the ceiling is the number to fix, in gigabytes per tier per year, before the rate.
+So layer 2 as a rate "tracking chain state" ages out fixed-memory silicon only if the dataset grows faster than a chip generation's memory headroom, and every rate that does that retires the honest small cards first by the same table. The E3 is the only case in the record where a growth rule beat a chip, and it beat a chip that had under-provisioned memory by a factor the card fleet also hit (4 GB). The rule that would hurt the f = 1 chip is one that keeps the dataset above what one board of commodity DRAM holds at the chip's price point, and that rule is unaffordable for the honest fleet. The honest reading: layer 2 is the right lever class (the memory is the one parameter a stored-dataset chip cannot read as firmware), and its value is set by the floor and the ceiling, not by the tracking: a floor keeps the dataset above every SRAM die (class B stays closed: 2 GiB is 1,000 mm^2 of SRAM even at N5), and a ceiling keeps it under the honest tiers' memory. Between those two lines the chip's board holds whatever the card holds, and the growth rate changes nothing for it. What "tracking chain state" adds over the fixed schedule is governance (no release decides the size) and the class v5 link (the dataset is built from the state, so the size follows the state's record count naturally); it is not an anti-chip rate. Resolved by the synthesis lane (11:2x UK, `docs/design/class-v6-rotating-family.md` section 7b on `counter-asic-4`): layer 2's rule carries a per-year ceiling as its first constant, the fixed schedule's power-of-two step for that year, so the chain's state can bring a step forward and never add one; "retires cards before chips" is recorded as the reason the ceiling exists. Under that rule the table above is the ceiling's own schedule, and the honest 8 GB tier's year-12 line stands whatever the state does. What this file adds for the record: if the chain's state grew the way Ethereum's did (approximate, from memory: the account and storage state passed 100 GB in its eighth year), a dataset tracking it with no ceiling would have outgrown every consumer card inside the first decade; the ceiling is what makes layer 2 a governance rule and not a fleet-retirement rule.
 
 ### 4.3 Layer 3: scheduled family epochs by height, every 180 days, no release
 
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ Reading. Layer 4 is the right answer to this class and the only one of the four
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | 1 | **State layer 2's floor and ceiling in gigabytes per tier, before its rate.** The floor above every SRAM die (today's 2 GiB holds); the ceiling under the honest tiers' memory on a stated glide (the 8 GB tier's life is the first number) | the E3 is the only chip a growth rule ever killed and it was the chip with the fleet's own memory limit; Scrypt-N was abandoned because its growth was public and slow; Autolykos's growth is untested; a dataset that tracks chain state literally outgrows every card if the state grows the way Ethereum's did (approximate) | none at the floor; everything at the ceiling | genesis rule, with the card-lifetime table |
 | 2 | **The clock and the detector**, unchanged from the 5 October ranking and still unbuilt: the per-program rate spread and nonce pattern on the observer (the method that found Monero's chips at 85 percent), plus a share-by-key-and-template instrument (what found Qubic until it randomised), plus the issuance trigger at about USD 50 K a day | every chip in the record was on its chain before it was announced (Monero 2017, Zcash's three groups, SChernykh's 2021 reading of the X5) | none | before the public testnet |
-| 3 | **Keep the read width out of the era draw** unless a width other than 4 bytes is measured latency-bound on all three vendors; a draw over {4 B, 16 B} is harmless and worthless (w16 moved the chip's cost not at all) | the Ethash chips' whole edge was the bandwidth lever Ren and Devadas name; w64 made the 5090 bandwidth-bound | a 47 percent loss on the 5090 at w64 | spec 1.13.1's allowed set stays {1} |
+| 3 | **The read width's draw band stops where the honest card stops being latency-bound**: the synthesis lane keeps {4 B, 16 B} on the measured warrant (w16 latency-bound within 2.7 percent on the 5090 and the 9070 XT, within 1 percent on the M5 Max); w64 is out (the 5090 bandwidth-bound at 71.9 MH/s); the draw costs every chip nothing (the same 32-byte atom at either width) and is a governance value only | the Ethash chips' whole edge was the bandwidth lever Ren and Devadas name; a width that makes the card bandwidth-bound hands the chip that lever | within 2.7 percent at w16; 47 percent at w64 | the band {4 B, 16 B} in the class v6 spec; nothing wider without a per-vendor latency-bound measurement |
 | 4 | **Bound the op-mix draw by the per-vendor energy table, not only by the rate spread**: the 5090 pays 55.8 pJ per shuffle against 11.3 per add, so a shuffle-heavy era taxes the honest card up to 5x per instruction for no better k | X16R's drawn order cost the chip nothing and the fleet nothing; Igneum's draw can cost the fleet watts | up to 2x the premium per instruction at the band's edge | the band's definition in the class v6 spec |
 | 5 | **Order the reserve by what a sequencer cannot fold into firmware**, mm8 last; and name the random item-derivation program (the 5 October addition 2) as the one reserve item whose semantics are not knowable at genesis | the kHeavyHash chips and the 5090's own 1.4 to 4.1 pJ per int8 MAC; RandomX's SuperscalarHash is the one idea Igneum has not taken, and it acts on the f = 0 chip only | none at launch | reserve ordering, genesis |
 | 6 | **Generalise layer 4 with a null per drawn parameter**: the window model re-derived per era, the census per draw, and a stated ceiling for the shadow-written residue per shadow placement | lesson 3 | 2.2 s per candidate once an epoch on a node | the class v6 acceptance rule |