Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
c570c6114a essay: bound the rollup analogy to the paper's precise framing
Part II rewritten (doc-only; the attested freeze 172a1d0 is untouched).
The earlier draft claimed the resemblance 'is not a metaphor', called
the extractors fraud proofs 'in the strict sense', and said the system
'cannot fail to convict' — the same compressed overclaims the paper
removed in its round-12 revision. Now: the extractors are REDUCTION
WITNESSES against SHA-256 collision resistance (accepting a forged
consistency proof would break the hash; it does not by itself prove
operator misconduct); the one direct-attribution mechanism is
equivocation evidence (two conflicting signed heads, same size, one log
context — signature layer, not hash layer); a fabricated LEAF is caught
only by off-protocol independent replay. Three disanalogies stated
plainly; the entry-13 closing reframed to the plain fact, no metaphor
needed. Framing note added at top disclosing the correction.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-19 17:49:56 +02:00
ace5ba2071 docs: optimistic-accountability essay reflects entry 13 live (drill catch)
The header still called the essay a 'parked blog-post source' awaiting
entry 13, and two future tenses ('will carry') survived — the blog is
published and entry 13 is live. Caught by a fresh-pattern sweep after
the hand-picked patterns of the first documentation pass missed them.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-16 20:46:45 +02:00
b7ab1811d7 docs: optimistic-accountability essay (rollup ↔ LTL mapping + what the tree actually holds); wired into runbook B7
Parked blog-post source, publishes after entry 13 (so it can end with
a live leaf link). Part I: the tree holds verification-event records
(operator claims that name their own evidence via commit+toolchain
pins), not the Lean proofs; three-layer guarantee table (kernel /
replay pin / accumulator). Part II: the optimistic-rollup resemblance
made precise — two fraud layers (log-layer: Theorem 3 as a
constructive fraud-proof generator; claim-layer: replay with an
infinite challenge window), the honest enforcement gap (reputational
vs economic slashing, CT lineage), the watcher/liveness assumption,
and the inversion (validity-proven payload in an optimistic envelope;
entry 13 = formally verified fraud-proof machinery).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-14 11:27:30 +02:00