Files
zeekayandHanzo Dev 178febad68 papers: reconcile T-Chain -> M-Chain / F-Chain / B-Chain per LP-134
Every rendered "T-Chain" / "ThresholdVM" / "teleportvm" reference across
the paper corpus is rewritten to the correct canonical chain by concern:
threshold signing / MPC / bridge custody / key recovery -> M-Chain (MVM);
FHE / encrypted compute / threshold decryption -> F-Chain (FVM); teleport
/ cross-chain messaging -> B-Chain (bridgevm); consensus Pulsar stays
Q-Chain. Section lux-trust-kernel/03-t-chain-threshold-governance.tex
renamed -> 03-f-chain-encrypted-policy.tex (with \input + xref fixes).
Braided "T-Chain" sections split by concern (M vs F). Only lp-020's
chain-separation rationale and the shared lux/chains/thresholdvm library
path retain the name, to record the removal. All changed papers rebuilt
(pdflatex, rc=0, no undefined refs).

ยง09 of lux-dao-governance-framework reframed: fabricated "production
deployment" metrics ($50M/$240k/$12M, survey %s, "as of Oct 2024")
relabeled as illustrative design configurations with no invented
replacements; reality noted (DAO treasury is a 1/1 Safe); conclusion
echo + one "first production" overclaim softened.

This commit also captures concurrent corpus workstreams on the same tree.

Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
2026-07-02 00:57:09 -07:00

79 lines
3.1 KiB
TeX

\section{Composition With Sibling LPs}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}lp{9cm}@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{LP} & \textbf{Composition} \\
\midrule
LP-017 & Codenames (Pulsar / Aurora / Polaris) are INTERNAL identifiers; the mode names are the operator-facing surface \\
LP-181 & Magnetar threshold SLH-DSA; PQ-heavy / strict-PQ-heavy leg \\
LP-182 & QuasarCert wire format; unchanged across all modes \\
LP-202 & Cert tier degradation contract; monotonic observability \\
LP-203 & GPU-native verify; per-leg dispatch lets modes share kernels \\
LP-204 & Network of blockchains; each chain picks one mode at genesis \\
LP-205 & Pipelined Quasar; throughput model parameterized by mode \\
LP-208 & DAG mempool; ordering committed at the chosen mode \\
LP-209 & Mysticeti ordering; cert per wave at the chosen mode \\
LP-210 & Block-STM; staged-prepare at the chosen mode \\
LP-211 & Cross-shard atomic commit; cert at the parent-L1 mode \\
LP-218 & ZAP P3Q PQ rollup; \texttt{CertModeFloor} per rollup \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Composition of LP-217 with sibling LPs.}
\label{tab:composition}
\end{table}
\subsection{Wire format unchanged}
The QuasarCert struct shape (LP-182) is the same across all modes.
The operator's mode choice is a header byte on the runtime config,
NOT a wire format change. Relying parties parse the cert and apply
mode policy locally.
\section{Activation Marker}
\begin{verbatim}
activates: 2025-12-25T16:20:00-08:00
activates-unix: 1766708400
\end{verbatim}
The 4-mode ladder is the operator-facing surface from activation
forward. The codenames remain valid internal identifiers and are
not ripped from the codebase.
\section{Backwards Compatibility}
None. The codenames remain as INTERNAL identifiers --
operator config tooling, dashboards, and docs use the mode
names. Code that references \texttt{polaris.go}'s
\texttt{PolarisLegs} struct or \texttt{IsPolaris} /
\texttt{HasHashBased} predicates is unaffected: those are
internal-API surfaces, not operator-facing.
A chain genesis published before activation cannot use the mode
names. Pre-activation chains are on the pre-Quasar Edition Lux
network and are out of scope for this LP entirely.
\section{Security Considerations}
The mode ladder does not change the cryptographic guarantees of any
individual leg. Mode security is the floor of the strongest leg in
the required set -- the same property LP-017 stated for cert
profiles.
The mode names declare posture explicitly. An operator who picks
\texttt{PQ-off} is making an informed declaration that their
threat model excludes store-now-decrypt-later adversaries; the
codename ``Pulsar'' did not make that declaration nearly as
legibly. This is a security property of the SPEC SURFACE, not the
protocol -- but operator-error reduction is a real security
concern at the human layer.
The pure-PQ variants drop BLS. A chain at \texttt{strict-PQ-*}
cannot interoperate with any relying party that requires BLS in
the cert; the relying party will see an empty BLS leg and degrade
per LP-202. This is intended -- pure-PQ chains are explicit about
not consuming BLS.