papers/lux-master-security-model/sections/01-introduction.tex

\section{Introduction}

\label{sec:introduction}

Most blockchain security documentation falls into one of two categories: marketing
(``military-grade encryption,'' ``unbreakable consensus'') or implementation detail
(``we use BLS12-381 for signing''). Neither is useful for evaluating actual security.
Marketing provides no falsifiable claims. Implementation detail provides no threat
context.

This document takes a different approach. We state:

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2em]
  \item What adversaries we defend against (Section~\ref{sec:adversaries}).
  \item What cryptographic assumptions we rely on (Section~\ref{sec:assumptions}).
  \item What each layer of the protocol guarantees (Section~\ref{sec:layers}).
  \item What happens when each assumption fails (Section~\ref{sec:failure-modes}).
  \item What we trust and why (Section~\ref{sec:trust}).
  \item What has been formally verified, what has been tested, and what is merely
        assumed (Section~\ref{sec:verification}).
\end{enumerate}

\begin{invariant}[The Security Invariant]
\label{inv:main}
Every security claim in this document is annotated with one of three labels:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=2em]
  \item \textbf{[Proven]}: Formally proven in a referenced proof system or paper.
  \item \textbf{[Tested]}: Empirically validated with cited test results, benchmarks,
        or audit findings.
  \item \textbf{[Assumed]}: An unproven assumption on which the claim depends,
        stated explicitly.
\end{itemize}
Claims without labels do not exist in this document.
\end{invariant}

%% ========================================================================
%%  2. ADVERSARY CLASSES
%% ========================================================================