|
|
|
|
@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Cross-reference (external review, 3 October 2026, night): the bounty's scoring r
|
|
|
|
|
### M2. Your own prototype is not memory-hard
|
|
|
|
|
"Your TESTS.md says computing the dataset inline runs 110x faster than loading it. You put the 228 Mhash/s number on the website anyway."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Monero's idea section, the "Measured so far" paragraph, "computing items on the fly runs 4.8x slower than loading them"; What Igneum does not claim, "A memory-hard prototype on every vendor". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. The prototype dataset is a six-operation closed form, and `--inline-dataset` measured 4,888 Mhash/s against 44.6 honest on the M5 Max, about 110x. The litepaper quotes the 228 and 45 Mhash/s figures without that caveat. The fix is the 256 MB RandomX-style cache with eight dependent reads per item (design doc, Finality v2, Lottery seeds item 3), which is the next thing to build. The number that matters afterwards is the shortcut ratio, which must fall to about 1. The litepaper must carry the caveat until then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Evidence: design doc, "ASIC resistance" section. Fix: overclaims list, items 11
|
|
|
|
|
### M4. ProgPoW already did this and you do not mention it
|
|
|
|
|
"A GPU program whose random maths changes every few blocks shipped on Ravencoin as KAWPOW in 2020. Your 'first' table says the GPU version was 'designed, discussed, never shipped'. That is false."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, precedents table row 1, "ProgPoW, as KAWPOW on Ravencoin since 2020". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. ProgPoW, and KAWPOW on Ravencoin since May 2020 (approximate), regenerate a random maths sequence per period on GPUs. The design doc cites ProgPoW's fixed-footprint rule; the litepaper's firsts table does not. What Igneum adds over ProgPoW: a full kernel per hour compiled to native code, warp shuffles as the unit of work and verification, a daily dataset derived from a 256 MB cache, a verifiable delay between seed and program, automatic era draws from a genesis reserve, and a growing dataset. The row must be rewritten to name ProgPoW and KAWPOW as the closest precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Evidence: `proto-metal/TESTS.md` section 3 and section 8, "next three tests" ite
|
|
|
|
|
### M7. No cryptographic analysis at all
|
|
|
|
|
"splitmix32(nonce ^ seed) ^ seed per register, then add-rotate-xor-multiply with OR. Nobody has looked at preimage, collision or seed-influence resistance. This is a toy hash that happens to be slow."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated in the test report, not yet in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section, "The hash is a lottery, not a general-purpose cryptographic hash" and "Open: no analysis of the lottery properties exists yet". Was: Conceded, stated in the test report, not yet in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. TESTS.md section 8 says exactly this. The lottery hash needs only to be a fair lottery: unpredictable output per nonce, no shortcut cheaper than honest evaluation, no bias a miner can exploit. It does not need to be a general-purpose cryptographic hash, and the design should say that explicitly and then prove the narrower property. The ad-hoc seed derivation (FNV-1a plus SplitMix) is to be replaced with a standard hash so the seed-to-program mapping is auditable. External review in phase 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Evidence: `docs/bench-log.md` (RTX 5090 first run), `proto-metal/TESTS.md` secti
|
|
|
|
|
### M9. The 10 ms CPU verification gate is unmeasured
|
|
|
|
|
"0.02 ms per warp is with a six-op dataset formula. With a 256 MB cache and eight dependent reads per item it will be a different number, and you call it 'the measured gate'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section, "Measured: 0.41 to 0.58 ms per warp on one Apple M5 Max core with the 256 MB cache"; vs RandomX "Light verification" row. Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The 0.015 to 0.021 ms figures are with the cheap closed-form dataset. The design bounds a warp to at most 4,096 distinct dataset items, each from eight dependent cache reads, so the verifier does about 32,000 random reads in 256 MB per warp. At roughly 100 ns per miss that is about 3 ms, approximate, which is why 10 ms is the gate. It has not been measured, and the design doc lists it as a promise until measured. The experiment is scheduled on an M5 Max and on a 2019-class laptop core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section a
|
|
|
|
|
### M10. "Bound by memory bandwidth" is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
"Your own log says random-access bound. The 5090 moves 95 GB/s of useful loads against 1,638 GB/s sequential. HBM cards and chips with wide random-access memory will beat consumer GDDR here."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Answered with evidence, with a wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Answered with evidence, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Mining section, "bound by random memory access. Measured: an RTX 5090 hashes at 95 GB/s of useful 4-byte loads against 1,638 GB/s of sequential writes" (overclaim 14 applied tonight; the sentence was still "bound by memory bandwidth" at 18:20 UTC). Was: Answered with evidence, with a wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The log is right and the litepaper's word is wrong: the limit is random access latency, about 23.7 billion random 4-byte loads per second on the 5090 regardless of program. The wording will change. On the substance: a chip or a datacentre card still needs gigabytes of memory and still pays the random-access cost; HBM improves bandwidth more than it improves random 32-byte sector latency, approximate. Whether an H100-class card beats a 5090 per dollar on this workload is a measurement we have not made, and it belongs on the January 2027 leaderboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ Evidence: `sim/results.md` table B.
|
|
|
|
|
### M13. Macs mine too is marketing
|
|
|
|
|
"An M5 Max does 45 Mhash/s against 228 on a 5090 and costs more. 'Macs mine too' is a line for people who will lose money."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, partly stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, For miners, Hardware, "Macs mine too, at about a fifth of a flagship card: Measured, 26.7 against 123 million hashes a second" (confirmed by grep tonight; the projected-earnings half is not written because the app shows none, see M29). Was: Conceded, partly stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The measured ratio is about 5x in the 5090's favour, so a Mac is a poor miner per dollar. The litepaper says Macs mine; it should say Macs mine at about a fifth of a flagship card and that the one-click app shows projected earnings before it starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ Evidence: design doc Finality v2, "Residual risks" bullets 3 and 4; `sim/results
|
|
|
|
|
### F5. The headline arithmetic is misread on purpose
|
|
|
|
|
"'An attacker who brought the whole network's hashrate needs ten days for a third.' If I bring hashrate equal to the network I have half the blocks and need twenty days for a third and never reach two thirds. Your ten days assumes honest miners produce nothing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Finality, "an attacker producing every block on the chain, with honest miners gone" and "An attacker matching the honest network needs twenty days for a third and never reaches two thirds"; the same arithmetic in What Igneum does not claim. Was: Conceded, wording to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct reading. The 10 and 20 day figures assume the attacker produces 100% of blocks, which is the strongest attacker and therefore a true lower bound, and the sentence should say "an attacker producing every block on the chain". With half the blocks: 1/3 at day 20 and 2/3 never. With 60%: 1/3 on day 18 to 26 depending on the (now removed) cap, 2/3 never. With 75%: 2/3 on day 27 to 34.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ Evidence: `sim/results.md` table E; design doc Finality v2, Quorum item 4.
|
|
|
|
|
### F10. Pools hold the votes
|
|
|
|
|
"Two pools at 70% of hashrate is normal on a GPU coin. On Igneum that is two operators holding finality."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated in the design doc, not in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Finality, "Pools carry their hashers' votes, so vote concentration equals pool concentration, and it is public"; Governance, "governed by the hashrate that powers it". Was: Conceded, stated in the design doc, not in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. The vote key is named in the block header by whoever builds the block, which in a pool is the pool. The design doc states "Pools hold their hashers' votes. Vote concentration equals pool concentration, as on Bitcoin, and is public." Stratum v2 lets a hasher choose transactions when its pool supports it, and does nothing for the vote key. Solo mining is viable at one block a second (86,400 blocks a day), which widens the key set in a way Bitcoin's block rate does not, and the dust threshold of 100 blocks per 30 days is about 0.004% of hashrate. The litepaper's "governed by the people who power it, and by nobody else" must carry the pool sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ Evidence: design doc, "Proving speed on consumer GPUs" risk item and "Who needs"
|
|
|
|
|
### P1. The 20-second shard is a number you made up
|
|
|
|
|
"'A 12 GB card proves one shard in about 20 seconds, measured on a mid-range card before launch.' So it is not measured. You wrote a target in the past tense."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper. Sweep (5 October 2026): a full shard at S_p = 7.5 M pgas was proven on an RTX 5090: core 9.1 s, compressed 10.9 s, a two-shard block aggregated in 2.2 s, all verified (bench-log, "shard proving on the RTX 5090"). The gate card is a 12 GB mid-range card, not a 5090, so the 20-s figure stays a target on that card, under P16's standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Proving, The proving budget, "Target: shard size will be set so a 12 GB card proves one shard in about 20 seconds. That number is the phase 2 gate". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper. Sweep (5 October 2026): a full shard at S_p = 7.5 M pgas was proven on an RTX 5090: core 9.1 s, compressed 10.9 s, a two-shard block aggregated in 2.2 s, all verified (bench-log, "shard proving on the RTX 5090"). The gate card is a 12 GB mid-range card, not a 5090, so the 20-s figure stays a target on that card, under P16's standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. It is the phase 2 gate, to be measured on a 3060-class card, and no SP1 shard has been proven on any card in this repository yet. The sentence must be rewritten as a target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ Evidence: design doc "Unit economics of a proof"; litepaper "What Igneum does no
|
|
|
|
|
### P3. A phone verifies in milliseconds is a SNARK-wrapper claim
|
|
|
|
|
"Hash-based STARK proofs are hundreds of kilobytes and take real work to verify. Milliseconds on a phone means a Groth16 or Plonk wrapper, and wrapping SP1 proofs needs a big machine for minutes."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, the certificate half measured in a phone-sized tab, the wrapper half unmeasured and unbuilt (5 October 2026, evening sweep). Was: Open, experiment scheduled. Sweep (5 October 2026): hardware item (the wrapper on consumer hardware); not runnable here.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open (the wrapper on consumer hardware, phase two), text stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Proving, "Wrapped for light clients, a phone checks it in milliseconds; the wrapping cost is a phase two measurement", followed by the certificate-half numbers (139 to 155 ms cold, 58 to 68 ms warm, laptop core, no phone) from `docs/bench-log.md` "FUD ledger sweep round 6", P3. Was: Open, the certificate half measured in a phone-sized tab, the wrapper half unmeasured and unbuilt (5 October 2026, evening sweep). Was: Open, experiment scheduled. Sweep (5 October 2026): hardware item (the wrapper on consumer hardware); not runnable here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): what the homepage verifier measures is a BLS certificate, not a SNARK: `site/verify/core.js` recomputes 21 header hashes (BLAKE2b), checks the voter list's canonical order, sums the 16 signers' G1 keys and checks one BLS12-381 aggregate signature, in pure JavaScript (`@noble/curves` 2.4.0). Measured tonight on `https://igneum.network/verify/test.html` against the live checkpoint 3668 (16 of 21 signers, 72.3% of weight): in the built-in browser pane's mobile emulation (375 x 812, an Android user agent, three loads) the genuine certificate verified in 139.1, 150.2 and 155.3 ms cold and 68.3, 58.4 and 64.8 ms warm; the same page at desktop size on the same machine 151 and 63.3 ms. Emulation changes the viewport and the user agent and nothing else: the CPU is this M5 Max under a load average above 100 (two builds and the C4 harness running), so the mobile and desktop numbers are the same number, and the 15 to 66 ms of `docs/plans/morning-2026-10-04.md` is the same laptop idle. What is NOT measured: any phone (a 2024 phone core is 2x to 4x slower than this laptop core on scalar JavaScript, approximate, so 150 to 600 ms cold for the certificate alone); and the thing the critic names, the wrapped block proof. No wrapper exists: the light verifier of the pinned SP1 compressed proof takes 1.3 to 2.1 s of setup plus 2 to 108 ms per verify on this Mac (bench-log 5 October, "the program id split"), is a 58 MB native binary, and a Groth16 or Plonk wrap of it is unbuilt (phase 2 benchmark). The litepaper's phone claim stays "wrapped for light clients" until the wrapper is measured on a phone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ Evidence: not yet. Fix: overclaims list, item 25.
|
|
|
|
|
### P4. Trustless light clients need a consensus proof you do not have
|
|
|
|
|
"Checking 'one proof and one locked checkpoint' means verifying a BLS certificate against two thirds of active 30-day weight. Computing that weight needs 30 days of headers. Your own review scoped the consensus proof as phase two. The litepaper sells it at launch."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated in the design doc, overclaimed in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, precedents table row 6, "The consensus proof that makes the checkpoint self-verifying is phase two"; Building item 2, "Light clients". Was: Conceded, stated in the design doc, overclaimed in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The hostile review table says "One-proof light clients and committee-free bridges need a consensus proof, not just an execution proof. Scoped as phase two with honest cost." At launch a light client trusts a recent certificate it is given (as Ethereum light clients trust a sync committee checkpoint) and verifies execution from there. The firsts table row and the "Trustless light clients" paragraph must be re-scoped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ Evidence: design doc, hostile review table row "EVM semantics on a DAG". Fix: ov
|
|
|
|
|
### P6. The proving market is tiny
|
|
|
|
|
"Total rollup proving spend is low millions a year and Boundless, Succinct and the rollups' own clusters already fight for it. 'Igneum gives the proving market its cheapest supplier' is a line for miners who have not seen the numbers."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated in the litepaper, with one overclaim to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, The problem, "a supplier whose marginal cost is close to power"; "cheapest supplier" and "lowest cost" absent from the page (grep, tonight). Was: Conceded, stated in the litepaper, with one overclaim to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The litepaper says the market is small three times and calls external proving "upside, not a promise". The design doc estimates total spend at low millions of dollars a year, approximate, and says a GPU fleet of any size swamps it. Igneum does not depend on it: in-chain proving is paid from emission and gas regardless. The overclaim is "cheapest supplier": Boundless already admits home GPUs, and Succinct's and Boundless's provers must stake their own tokens, which an Igneum miner would also have to hold to bid there. "Marginal cost close to power" is defensible; "cheapest" is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`: "cheapest suppli
|
|
|
|
|
### P7. A soundness bug in SP1 is a consensus failure
|
|
|
|
|
"SP1 has had disclosed soundness bugs. On Igneum a forged proof means 'a block with a wrong state cannot exist' becomes a wrong state that exists, and your upgrade path is a 90% miner vote with three months' notice."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Abstract, "Writing new code, including an emergency fix to the proof system, is the one thing that takes a person"; Proving, "no node accepts a block with a wrong state root". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct that a live soundness bug cannot wait for a three-month release train. Full nodes execute natively, so a forged proof disagreeing with native execution is detectable by every full node, and the rule must be that a full node rejects a proof whose claimed state root differs from its own execution. That turns a soundness bug into a light-client problem rather than a chain split, and it must be written into the spec. The emergency path for the proof system version is a human one and the litepaper should say so, alongside the "nothing needs a human" sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ Evidence: design doc, Security model table row 3.
|
|
|
|
|
### P10. External jobs are paid off-chain, so where is the burn
|
|
|
|
|
"The Economics section says every outside customer pays in IGN and part is burned. The miner section says rollups pay in their own money and the income does not move with the IGN price. Both cannot be true."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, contradiction to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, "Outside customers pay in their own currency on their own chain at launch; settlement in IGN with a 10% burn follows when the proof bridge lets Igneum see the payment"; the route table rows 4 and 5 (E13). Was: Conceded, contradiction to fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The litepaper contradicts itself. The design is: at launch external jobs are paid on the customer's chain, in the customer's currency, to a payout contract keyed by miner address, because Igneum cannot yet see Ethereum. The 10% burn in IGN applies when the job market settles on Igneum, which needs the proof bridge. The Economics section must say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ Evidence: spec section 5.5; design doc "No development fund, so nothing to fight
|
|
|
|
|
### E5. "Not one coin to a founder" is false
|
|
|
|
|
"The official miner carries a 1% dev fee to the founder's company. That is 1% of all hashrate paid to one company for as long as miners run it, which is a founder allocation with better PR."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, partly stated, homepage overclaims.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, "No fund, no foundation, no fee to the team", "1 block in 100 pays the project"; `site/index.html`, Economics, "The one payment to the project is the Ember software's optional 1% dev fee". Was: Conceded, partly stated, homepage overclaims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct in substance. The litepaper discloses the 1% dev fee and says any other client is welcome. The homepage says "Not one coin to a founder, a fund or a stake", which is true of emission and false of the dev fee. There is no development fund (removed 3 October 2026) and no protocol fee to the team; the team earns from the client dev fee, its pool, its provers in the job market and the app share on contracts it deploys, all in the open. All of that must be in one place in the litepaper under a heading a critic can quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, "No f
|
|
|
|
|
### E6. Two-year halvings bleed hashrate
|
|
|
|
|
"Every GPU coin that halved fast lost its miners at the second halving. You halve every two years for ever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, no experiment possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, Security after the subsidy, "The schedule is a bet, not a measurement: a halving halves emission income overnight if price and fees do nothing", with Kaspa's reduction marked approximate. Was: Conceded, no experiment possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True that a halving halves emission income overnight if price and fees do nothing. The schedule was chosen for the cap and for front-loading the fair launch. Kaspa's smooth monthly reduction is a precedent for a steep schedule that kept hashrate while price rose (approximate). Igneum's in-chain proving pay does not halve with emission since it is paid from gas as well. Nothing here is a measurement; it is a bet, and the litepaper should present it as one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ Evidence: litepaper "Liquidity from the people who are there".
|
|
|
|
|
### G1. No cryptography team
|
|
|
|
|
"One founder. The design doc says phases one and two 'need one cryptographer or proof-systems engineer' and none is named. The reviewers for gate 3 are 'named' in the litepaper and nobody is named."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Questions miners ask, "reviewers will be named and paid before gate 3"; What Igneum does not claim, "A cryptography team. Not yet". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. No cryptographer has been hired. The litepaper's gate 3 refers to "named reviewers" who do not yet exist. The honest text is: the specification is written for external review; reviewers will be named and paid before gate 3; until then every security claim here is a design claim. The hostile reviews so far were run by the founder with AI assistance (G2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Questions miners
|
|
|
|
|
### G2. An AI designed this
|
|
|
|
|
"The repo has `.claude/agents/cryptographer.md`. The commits are co-authored by a language model. The 'hostile review' was a chatbot role-playing a Kaspa researcher."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, cover, "Method one founder with AI systems"; Who are you?, "One founder, pseudonymous, working with AI systems". Was: Conceded, not yet stated in the litepaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. The design, the reviews, the prototype code, the simulator and this ledger were produced by the founder working with AI models, and the commit history says so. What that does and does not mean: the measurements are measurements, reproducible from the commands in the logs; the simulation is code anyone can run; the design claims are design claims until external humans with names have tried to break them. The litepaper should disclose the method in one sentence and let the measurements stand on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -516,9 +516,9 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, cover meta line
|
|
|
|
|
### G3. Who are you
|
|
|
|
|
"Anonymous founder, GoDaddy domains, a Vercel site, a litepaper dated the same day as five 'milestones'. This is a template."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, team page deferred by decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Decided (5 October 2026): no team page for now; the litepaper says the team is pseudonymous and names no team page. Stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Who are you?, "The team is pseudonymous and there is no team page". Was: Conceded, team page deferred by decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Decision owner (5 October 2026, evening sweep): the project lead (the team page at public testnet, fud-fixes row 9).
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, team page deferred by decision. Decided 5 October 2026: no team page for now; the litepaper says the team is pseudonymous and names no team page.
|
|
|
|
|
Was: Status: Conceded, team page deferred by decision. Decided 5 October 2026: no team page for now; the litepaper says the team is pseudonymous and names no team page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The founder's name is on every commit. The litepaper defers the team page to public testnet by decision, with disclosed mining addresses at genesis. There are no coins to sell and no sale planned, so there is nothing to run away with before block one. The five log entries dated 3 October 2026 are day one of the project and should be presented as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ Evidence: design doc, decisions table row "Who are you?". Journey: `site/journey
|
|
|
|
|
### G4. No admin keys, except in everything that matters
|
|
|
|
|
"'There are no admin keys.' The DEX, the lending market, the bridge and the dev fund contract all ship from your team. Bridges are where the admin keys live."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Governance, "There are no admin keys in consensus"; `site/index.html`, tile "admin keys in consensus". Was: Conceded, wording fix needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Consensus has no admin keys. The genesis apps are contracts and each will have an upgrade policy; the bridge's is the one that matters, and if it starts as a committee bridge (E7) it has keys by definition. The development fund contract named in the quote no longer exists: the fund was removed on 3 October 2026. The litepaper's sentence must be scoped to consensus and each genesis contract must publish its key policy before launch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ Evidence: litepaper "Governance", last bullet.
|
|
|
|
|
### G6. Stratum v2 does not make pools unable to censor
|
|
|
|
|
"Job declaration in Stratum v2 is optional for pools. 'Pools cannot censor' is false. And the vote key stays with the pool regardless."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Governance, "Pools can be bypassed on transaction choice". Was: Conceded, wording fix needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Stratum v2 job declaration lets a hasher choose transactions when its pool supports it, and the official pool software will support it. Pools can still decline, and the vote key in the header is the pool's. The sentence becomes "Pools can be bypassed on transaction choice" with the vote-key caveat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ Evidence: litepaper "For miners", hardware paragraph. Wording: overclaims list,
|
|
|
|
|
### C2. vs Monero: "no chip in seven years" is not proof
|
|
|
|
|
"Absence of a public RandomX ASIC is not evidence one cannot exist. Monero is also a small prize."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, label needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Mining, "no chip publicly shipped, approximate" and "Monero is precedent, not proof"; `site/index.html`, hero, "a chip gains too little to take your place". Was: Conceded, label needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. "No chip publicly shipped, approximate" is the defensible phrasing. The argument from Monero is precedent, not proof, and the bounty exists because precedent is not proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Mining: "no chip
|
|
|
|
|
### C3. vs Kaspa: you misrepresent them
|
|
|
|
|
"Kaspa never claimed ASIC resistance and did not get 'captured'. It also has 10 bps in production and a GHOSTDAG you are forking. Say thank you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, The problem, "Chips arrived, as on Kaspa, whose hash was designed to welcome them"; Speed, "Kaspa has run in production since 2021 (approximate), forked from rusty-kaspa"; precedents row 5, "Kaspa's fair launch." with no "with no utility". Was: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct on both counts. kHeavyHash was built to be hardware-friendly and Kaspa's ASIC transition was expected by its community (approximate). The litepaper's "captured by specialised chips within two years, as Kaspa was" and "Kaspa's fair launch, with no utility" are unfair and will be rewritten. Igneum forks rusty-kaspa and borrows the block-rate step plan from Crescendo; the litepaper should credit both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ Fix (5 October 2026, night): the certificate-driven reorg, built, unit-tested an
|
|
|
|
|
### C5. vs Ethereum: you compare inclusion to finality
|
|
|
|
|
"'Included in about one second, against twelve on Ethereum.' Inclusion in a DAG is not confirmation. Ethereum's twelve seconds is a slot, its finality is about thirteen minutes, and you compare your two-minute lock to that as if a two-minute lock by a pool committee were the same thing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Speed, "Inclusion is not confirmation on either chain". Was: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The numbers are approximately right and the framing is loose. Inclusion is not confirmation on either chain; Igneum's two-minute lock is a committee-of-miners finality with the limits in F4 and F6; Ethereum's finality is economic with slashing. The sentence should state both sides' mechanism, not just the minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Speed: inclusion
|
|
|
|
|
### C6. vs Ethereum: every one of your components is a research project
|
|
|
|
|
"A random-program hash with no analysis, a VDF, BLS sortition, STARK recursion on consumer cards, a 2D fee market, a DAG with EVM semantics. Ethereum has a thousand researchers and shipped these one at a time over a decade."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Roadmap, "the combination is the risk the gates price" and "Dates slip. Gates do not." Was: Conceded, not yet stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. Each component has a precedent in production somewhere (RandomX, Chia, Algorand and Ethereum for BLS and VRF, SP1, Kaspa) and no chain combines them. That is the risk the gates exist to price. The roadmap's four gates are kill points and the litepaper says so; it should also say the combination is the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ Evidence: `sim/results.md` table D.
|
|
|
|
|
### C8. vs Ergo, Ravencoin, Conflux: GPU mining has a home
|
|
|
|
|
"Ergo has been GPU-mined since 2019 with no ASIC. Ravencoin runs KAWPOW. Conflux is a GPU-mined DAG with an EVM space since 2020. 'GPU mining has no home' is false and your firsts table skips all three."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, The problem, "Ergo, Ravencoin and Conflux still mine on GPUs at a fraction of the 2022 fleet (approximate)"; precedents row 3 names Conflux. Was: Conceded, not yet stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Those chains exist and run on GPUs today (approximate). The accurate claim is that GPU mining lost its Ethereum-scale home in 2022 and that none of those chains proves its blocks or sells proving. Conflux in particular (GPU, DAG, EVM) belongs in the firsts table as the closest precedent for the combination, and the litepaper must name it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ Evidence: design doc "Existing prover networks" table, Aleo row.
|
|
|
|
|
### C10. vs Boundless and Succinct: you cannot bid there without their tokens
|
|
|
|
|
"'The Igneum miner client also bids on other proving networks.' Boundless provers post collateral in ZKC and Succinct provers stake PROVE. Your miner needs to buy their tokens to bid. And they already have home GPUs, so 'cheapest supplier' is false."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Proving for everyone else, "Boundless provers post ZKC and Succinct provers stake PROVE (approximate, from their documentation)". Was: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct on both points (approximate, from memory; verify against their current docs). The client can bid where a miner chooses to hold the collateral; the litepaper should not imply free entry, and "cheapest supplier" becomes "a supplier whose marginal cost is close to power".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Proving, "Provin
|
|
|
|
|
### C11. vs everyone: "firsts" that are not
|
|
|
|
|
"'A chain your browser verifies by itself' is phase two by your own doc. 'The GPU version never shipped' ignores KAWPOW. 'Finality immune to rentals' is 'not moved by rentals'. Three of your six firsts are wrong on day one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, table to rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, precedents table, "We know of no chain that combines them"; Building, "that we know no other EVM chain offers". Was: Conceded, table to rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The firsts table is rewritten in the overclaims list: each row states the closest precedent accurately, including ProgPoW/KAWPOW and Conflux, and marks the light-client row as phase two. The claim that stands is that no chain combines GPU mining, per-block ZK proofs, an EVM and a mining-weighted finality overlay, and the table should say "we know of none" and invite correction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ Evidence: design doc "Legal" paragraph. Fix: overclaims list, items 75 and 76.
|
|
|
|
|
### L2. Financial promotion rules
|
|
|
|
|
"Several jurisdictions now treat a cryptoasset promotion to their consumers as regulated: the UK since October 2023 needs an authorised approver, the EU under MiCA has its own marketing rules, the US has the Howey test. 'The people who show up early get the most' on a domain you own is a promotion wherever the reader sits."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, counsel not yet engaged. Sweep (5 October 2026): counsel; nothing runnable.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, counsel not yet engaged (decision owner the project lead, with counsel); text half stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, Supply, "Nearly a quarter of all supply is mined in the first year and half in the first two." with no "so" clause (overclaims 54 and 76, fud-fixes row 6); "Half of all IGN" absent from `site/index.html`. Was: Open, counsel not yet engaged. Sweep (5 October 2026): counsel; nothing runnable.
|
|
|
|
|
Decision owner (5 October 2026, evening sweep): the project lead, with counsel; nothing runnable here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: A litepaper describing how to mine a coin that does not exist is arguably not an invitation to engage in investment activity, and the regime has carve-outs for information that is not an inducement (approximate; this needs an opinion from counsel in the jurisdiction the project is established in, which is offshore and not yet named). Sentences that read as inducements to acquire ("show up early get the most", "half of all supply in the first two years") should be rewritten as schedule facts before v0.2. Country-code domains such as igneum.co.uk redirect to igneum.network and carry no separate content.
|
|
|
|
|
@ -775,7 +775,7 @@ Evidence: design doc "The first six months".
|
|
|
|
|
### X1. "Reproducible from the repository" and the repository is private
|
|
|
|
|
"Your site links to github.com/igneum-network/igneum. It 404s. 'Every number above is measured, published, and reproducible from the repository' is false today."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, vs RandomX "Track record" row, "The specification, reference hash, test vectors and simulators are public now (github.com/igneum-network/spec). The node, the miner and the wallet are in a private repository until the public testnet". Was: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Either the repository goes public with the litepaper or the sentence and the GitHub link come off the site until January 2027. Publishing the bench logs, the simulator and the test report with the litepaper is the cheaper fix and the honest one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, vs RandomX "Trac
|
|
|
|
|
### X2. "Get the miner" with no miner
|
|
|
|
|
"A big button that says 'Get the miner' on a chain with no miner, no testnet and no benchmark. Vapourware CTA."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/index.html`, hero button "See the miner"; the Mine section's download buttons carry the shipped devnet build's version and size (v0.3.9) beside "Public testnet: not yet open; the devnet build is here for people who want to look" and the devnet no-value line; a miner exists, so the premise is gone. Was: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The button should say what exists: "Benchmark: January 2027".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/index.html`: hero "See the miner"
|
|
|
|
|
### X3. "Proven by fire" when nothing has run
|
|
|
|
|
"Tagline: Proven by fire. Status: pre-specification, pre-testnet. 'Watch the chain prove itself' with nothing on the page."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded in part, labelled.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded in part, labelled, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/index.html`, the sentence "All of it will be on this page, live" is no longer on the page; the proofs feed now ends "Live rows arrive with the public testnet, August 2027" (overclaim 61). Was: Conceded in part, labelled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: The tagline plays on "proven" as in ZK proofs and "cupel". The homepage marks every live panel "PREVIEW", "prototype" or "at testnet", which is honest. The sentence "All of it will be on this page, live" is a promise about a future testnet and should say when. The tagline stays; nothing in the ledger depends on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -839,7 +839,7 @@ Evidence: not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
### X7. No community exists
|
|
|
|
|
"No Discord, no forum, no mailing list, no contact address on the site, and a ledger that says 'criticisms can be submitted'. Where?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): this ledger's submission line names hello@igneum.network and the spec issues route; `site/litepaper.html` last paragraph and the footer on every page carry both. Was: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The site needs a contact route before the litepaper is shared, and the repository needs to be public or a public issue tracker needs to exist. Until then this ledger's submission line points at a route that does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -850,7 +850,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated in part. `site/partials/footer.html` on
|
|
|
|
|
### X8. Exchange listings as a roadmap item
|
|
|
|
|
"'Mainnet fair launch: Genesis with no premine, 30-day ramp, exchange listings after.' You put listings in the roadmap."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Roadmap phase 6, and `site/journey.json` phase 6, "No listing is arranged, promised or sought by the project". Was: Conceded, fix now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. No listing is arranged, promised or sought by the project. The phrase comes off the roadmap and the homepage journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html` roadmap phase 6 a
|
|
|
|
|
### X9. Launch hashrate will be trivial
|
|
|
|
|
"Day one of a GPU coin with a 10% emission ramp is a few hundred cards. Anyone with a cloud account out-mines it for the price of lunch, and your finality has no history to lean on."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated in part; see F1.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Finality, "In the chain's first 30 days no checkpoint locks at all"; Fair launch, "The first 30 days of mainnet run on proof of work alone". Was: Conceded, stated in part; see F1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: True. The lottery is as attackable as any new proof-of-work chain for as long as it is small, and finality adds nothing until the window fills. The protections are the one-hour merge-depth bound, no listings before launch, and the proposed rule that no certificate forms until the window has 30 days of history. The litepaper must say that the first month is proof of work only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ Sweep (5 October 2026, evening): stated. `site/litepaper.html`, Finality: no che
|
|
|
|
|
### X10. Five milestones in one day
|
|
|
|
|
"Your Journey log shows five entries, all dated 3 October 2026. That is one day's work presented as a history."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, label needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/index.html`, journey section, "The log below is the engineering log's dated entries, newest first. Day one was 3 October 2026". Was: Conceded, label needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: It is one day's work, and the log says the date on every line. The label "Day one" above the entries would remove the impression of theatre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1187,7 +1187,7 @@ Evidence: `node1.log` 21:12:14 to 21:13:45; `proto-cuda/windows-miner/start-mini
|
|
|
|
|
### M18. The per-hash random data path is a one-bit select
|
|
|
|
|
"Your `add` picks one of two immediates by a bit of `r0`. A chip computes both and muxes. Calling that a data-dependent path next to ProgPoW is marketing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Mining table "Every hash" row, "The one-bit select inside the maths costs a chip nothing and is not a defence"; vs RandomX "Random program" row, "the 128 dataset addresses change with the nonce". Was: Conceded, wording fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Spec 1.4.1: `sel` is `r0` at the top of each iteration and each `add` selects `imm` or `imm2` by one bit of it. It costs a chip nothing and defends nothing; the defence is the random reads. The litepaper's vs RandomX row should drop "random data path" or say what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1360,7 +1360,7 @@ Evidence: spec 5.4; `site/index.html`. Review id R3.24.
|
|
|
|
|
### C13. Monero's seven years do not price a 256 MiB SRAM die
|
|
|
|
|
"RandomX's cache is 256 MiB too. Nobody built the die for Monero because the prize was small. That is not evidence about the die."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, label needed; extends C2.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, What Igneum does not claim, "they say nothing about the price of a chip with the 256 MB cache on its die, and that price is a cost model, not a measurement". Was: Conceded, label needed; extends C2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The precedent argument transfers the cache size and not the economics; see M16 for the pricing and the lever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1378,7 +1378,7 @@ Evidence: `site/litepaper.html`, Economics. Review id R3.23.
|
|
|
|
|
### L8. Third-party names as implied outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
"'Native USDC is requested from Circle during public testnet.' 'Canto and Blast proved builders come for this.' Names of companies next to outcomes you do not control."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, wording fix. Sweep (5 October 2026): public text, testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Questions builders ask, "whether it is issued is Circle's decision"; Canto and Blast absent from the page (grep, tonight). Was: Conceded, wording fix. Sweep (5 October 2026): public text, testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. Fix: "The project will ask Circle for native USDC during public testnet; whether it is issued is Circle's decision" and the Canto and Blast sentence as overclaim 39 already rewrites it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1485,7 +1485,7 @@ Evidence: spec 5.1, 5.3, 7.2; execution-layer 4.3, 9.1 R8. Experiment: O-5.9. Re
|
|
|
|
|
### E13. One diagram per payment route, or operator income and protocol income blur
|
|
|
|
|
"Your customer brief says dollars on the customer's chain; your economics section says IGN with a burn; your tiles said 'at launch'. Draw every route separately: currency, recipient, fee, any IGN purchase, any burn."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, document scheduled (O-5.10). Sweep (5 October 2026): no route figure exists yet (the customer brief has no route table and the litepaper none); public text, testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, "Every payment route", six rows (emission; base fee; priority fee; external job at launch; external job after the proof bridge; the official client's dev fee as operator income), columns currency, recipient, fee, burn; `docs/commercial/prover-customer-brief.md`, "Every payment route", the same six rows. Source: `docs/design/payment-routes.md` (3 October 2026), whose nine-row table the six rows condense; its section 4 states are of 3 October and the litepaper's labels supersede them (the dev fee and the escrow payout are implemented now). Was: Open, document scheduled (O-5.10). Sweep (5 October 2026): no route figure exists yet (the customer brief has no route table and the litepaper none); public text, testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. P10 fixed the contradiction in words and E11 fixed the tile; no single figure shows the routes. There are five: emission (80% producer, 20% proving pool, per block); base fee (burned in full on both gas dimensions); priority fee (80% miner and provers, 20% called app, unregistered share burned); external jobs at launch (customer's chain, customer's currency, payout contract by miner address, no burn); external jobs after the proof bridge (IGN on Igneum, 90% provers, 10% burn). A sixth is the official client's 1% dev fee to the entity (E5), which is operator income and never protocol income. The diagram goes in the litepaper's Economics section and in the customer brief, one route per row with currency, recipient, fee and burn, and no row that adds operator revenue to protocol revenue. Boundless's documented lifecycle (request, bidding, verification, payment) is the reviewer's comparison and approximate (C10).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1662,7 +1662,7 @@ Evidence: `docs/bench-log.md` 4 October 2026 (devnet v4, 9 identities); `site/jo
|
|
|
|
|
### D2. The app share pays nothing
|
|
|
|
|
"Run your own table. A 100,000-gas call at your devnet fees pays the app 20,000 gwei, four ten-millionths of a dollar at your base price. A million calls a day is $146 a year. 'Apps earn the gas they generate' is the Canto pitch, and Canto's chain has $1.4M of lending TVL."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, not yet stated. Fix: the litepaper bullet "Apps earn the gas they generate ... Canto and Blast proved builders come for this" is replaced by the "Why build here" text proposed in `docs/design/developer-adoption.md` section 7, which states the number.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Building, Why build here, "a million 100,000-gas calls a day at a 1 gwei tip pays about 7,300 IGN a year"; Canto and Blast absent from the page (grep, tonight). Was: Conceded, not yet stated. Fix: the litepaper bullet "Apps earn the gas they generate ... Canto and Blast proved builders come for this" is replaced by the "Why build here" text proposed in `docs/design/developer-adoption.md` section 7, which states the number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. The app share is a property of the fee flow, not an income at launch: 20% of the priority fee, per call frame, and the priority fee on an uncongested chain is whatever wallets quote by default. At the three price inputs of `docs/analysis/security-budget.md` and a 1 gwei tip, a million calls a day pays $146, $730 or $7,300 a year (the last at a 10 gwei tip). What is new in it against Canto and Sonic is library attribution at the code address and factory inheritance, and the fact that it comes from the user's tip and never from emission. The 20% should not be raised: Sonic's 90% has distributed about $2M in a year across a whole chain, and a larger share comes out of the miners' and provers' side, which is the security budget. Blast announced its shutdown on 2 October 2026, so the sentence citing it must go now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1925,7 +1925,7 @@ Evidence: the files above. Experiment: time from worker restart to first accepte
|
|
|
|
|
### E16. The 20% pool is burned on the live chain, and the text says it pays provers
|
|
|
|
|
"Your coinbase sends the 20% to an OP_RETURN tagged `igneum-proving-pool-v0`. Your own comment says provably burned. Your cap test counts it as supply. Your litepaper says, present tense, that it pays a standing prover population."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open (4 October 2026). Sweep (5 October 2026): confirmed in code: `devnet-v4` `consensus/core/src/igneum.rs:93` burns the 20% under the tag `igneum-proving-pool-v0`; the `proving` branch pays `proving_pool_credit` from shard records (`igneum/exec/src/proving.rs:304`) and is not on the devnet. The live-block test needs the proving branch rolled out; the text belongs to the testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open (code half: the single coinbase payout, group D); text half stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Economics, emission table 20% row, "the coinbase's 20% output goes to an unspendable script tagged igneum-proving-pool-v0 and is burned there. Provers are paid from a separate escrow in the execution state, credited by rule with the same 20% of each blue block's subsidy" (from the fork at `release-0.3.6` a24ab01a: `consensus/core/src/igneum.rs:86-98`, `consensus/src/processes/coinbase.rs:113`, `igneum/exec/src/executor.rs:160-176` `PROVING_POOL_ADDRESS`, `igneum/exec/src/proving.rs` `carried_payouts`); the same sentence under the bar on `site/index.html`. Was: Open (4 October 2026). Sweep (5 October 2026): confirmed in code: `devnet-v4` `consensus/core/src/igneum.rs:93` burns the 20% under the tag `igneum-proving-pool-v0`; the `proving` branch pays `proving_pool_credit` from shard records (`igneum/exec/src/proving.rs:304`) and is not on the devnet. The live-block test needs the proving branch rolled out; the text belongs to the testnet-prep branch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct for the live devnet-v4 line. `coinbase.rs:112-113`; `consensus/core/src/igneum.rs:86-98, 329-333`; evidence row 21. Proving v0 on the `proving` branch carries payouts in the shard statement (P21, P22) and the live chain does not run it. Until it does, a prover earns 0 from the pool and the spendable cap is 3.2 billion. Fix: one sentence in the litepaper Economics table (`site/litepaper.html:396, 414`) and under the homepage bar (`site/index.html:306, 446-448`): burned until the payout ships, no prover paid today; a burned-so-far figure on the live page; a decision on whether the payout reclaims the burned share or pays from new emission. Review ids R4.7.1, R4.7.2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1934,7 +1934,7 @@ Evidence: the files above; `docs/review/round-4-2026-10-04.md` section 7. Experi
|
|
|
|
|
### L9. "100% to miners and provers", "0% anyone else", and no word that devnet coins have no value
|
|
|
|
|
"The homepage says 100% to miners and provers and 0% to anyone else, beside a 1% client dev fee disclosed only in the litepaper. Nowhere on the site does it say the devnet's coins have no value or that the chain may be reset, and the Get the miner button is live."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open (4 October 2026); extends E5.
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/index.html`, `site/miner.html` and `site/wallet.html`, a line beside every download control, "Devnet: coins have no value and the chain may be reset."; `site/index.html` Economics tiles, "of emission to miners and provers; the protocol carries no fee" and "0% anyone else in the protocol", with the E16 sentence under the bar. Not done: the same line on `site/live.html` (not in this round's file list). Was: Open (4 October 2026); extends E5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. `site/index.html:306, 382, 446-448`; `grep` for "no value", "reset", "wiped", "test coins" across `site/*.html` finds nothing; the only disclaimer is the app's welcome screen (`app/igneum-app/ui/index.html:45`). Fix: "devnet: coins have no value and the chain may be reset" beside the button and on the live page; the homepage tiles match the litepaper's dev-fee sentence. Review ids R4.7.3, R4.7.5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1943,7 +1943,7 @@ Evidence: the files above.
|
|
|
|
|
### M29. The litepaper's app paragraph describes an app that does not exist
|
|
|
|
|
"'Press one button, and the card is mining and proving to a wallet the app made for you, with earnings shown in IGN and in your currency ... offers a hardware wallet for your earnings.' Version 0.3.3 shows a hash rate and block counts."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open (4 October 2026).
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Conceded, stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, For miners, "One click, for everyone else", rewritten to Ember 0.3.9 from `app/igneum-app/ui/index.html` (hash rate, blocks found, node, next program, finality votes, the proving tile, the devnet v4 label, the 80% power cap, the Settings switches); "It shows no earnings in IGN or in any currency, and it has no hardware-wallet path"; earnings, currency, game pause and the hardware wallet moved to "Roadmap, Designed and not in the app". Was: Open (4 October 2026).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct. `site/litepaper.html:424`; the app's sources have no earnings, currency or hardware-wallet path (`grep` of `src/*.rs` and `ui/app.js`); the prover service exists for the `proving` branch's chain. Fix: rewrite the paragraph to 0.3.3 (hash rate, blocks, devnet label, power cap, the prover setting where it applies) and move earnings, currency and the hardware wallet to a roadmap sentence. When an IGN figure is ever shown, derive it from accepted blocks over the last hour times the per-block subsidy, never from hash share, and label the network. Review id R4.7.4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -1978,7 +1978,7 @@ Evidence: session scratchpad `rt/logs/exec_b/miner_node1.log` (the template erro
|
|
|
|
|
### E17. Unlogged inputs behind the economics, minor
|
|
|
|
|
"The cap's 110 MH/s and its draw are not in the bench-log; the Mac's draw is not logged; the economy sim's one measured input is a 229 MH/s card against today's 124; mining-versus-pool flips from 4.9x for mining on today's devnet to 930x for proving at 10,000 cards and no document says it depends on fleet size; the app-share text omits '100,000-gas calls' and the open base unit; emission ran at up to 2x schedule; shard-scale prover cost is unmeasured on any GPU; the iGPU default off is right."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, minor; the simulator half re-run (5 October 2026 sweep). `sim/economy/sim.py` with the 5090 class at 124 MH/s (the devnet's measured rate) in place of 229, scenarios a and b, 2 seeds, 111 s: baseline profit USD 5.59 per 5090 card-day (6.37 at 229), 3090 2.73 (1.66), 3060 1.34 (0.78), small 0.74 (0.39); under the b shock 4.52 / 2.25 / 1.46 / 0.30; no backlog, every block proven within 60 s, hash trough 75% of pre-event under b (82% at 229), 5% of cards off (10%), oscillation flag in 1 of 2 seeds. The direction is as the review said: a slower flagship card shifts income toward the smaller classes and makes the fleet more sensitive to the price shock. The draw lines (`nvidia-smi` on both PCs, `powermetrics` on the Mac) need the machines (person). Was: Open, minor (4 October 2026).
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Open, minor (the draw lines need the machines); text half stated (5 October 2026, night): `site/litepaper.html`, Building, Why build here, "a million 100,000-gas calls a day at a 1 gwei tip pays about 7,300 IGN a year, with 1 gwei taken as a billionth of an IGN (the base unit is Open)"; For miners, "Which of the two in-chain streams pays more per GPU-second depends on the size of the fleet" with the 4.9x and 930x arithmetic marked approximate. Was: Open, minor; the simulator half re-run (5 October 2026 sweep). `sim/economy/sim.py` with the 5090 class at 124 MH/s (the devnet's measured rate) in place of 229, scenarios a and b, 2 seeds, 111 s: baseline profit USD 5.59 per 5090 card-day (6.37 at 229), 3090 2.73 (1.66), 3060 1.34 (0.78), small 0.74 (0.39); under the b shock 4.52 / 2.25 / 1.46 / 0.30; no backlog, every block proven within 60 s, hash trough 75% of pre-event under b (82% at 229), 5% of cards off (10%), oscillation flag in 1 of 2 seeds. The direction is as the review said: a slower flagship card shifts income toward the smaller classes and makes the fleet more sensitive to the price shock. The draw lines (`nvidia-smi` on both PCs, `powermetrics` on the Mac) need the machines (person). Was: Open, minor (4 October 2026).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Correct on each point; `docs/review/round-4-2026-10-04.md` section 7 holds the arithmetic. Fix: one `nvidia-smi` draw line per setting with the rate beside it on both PCs; one `powermetrics` line on the Mac; the sim rerun at 124 MH/s with the comparison stated as a function of fleet size; "a million 100,000-gas calls a day" in the litepaper. Review ids R4.7.7 to R4.7.13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
igneum-labs