6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Marcin Pawlowski
25d6463c23
Check in the evidence behind the pd report
The simulator gitignores its runs/ directory, so every table and figure in
reports/blend/pd rested on data that existed only on one machine. This adds the
sweep outputs of record under reports/blend/pd/data -- one directory per study,
1 MB total -- so any number can be checked against its source, or challenged,
without re-running hours of compute.

report_numbers.py comes with them: run it and it prints every value the report
quotes together with its across-topology standard error, straight from these
parquets. It reproduces the report tables exactly.

Kept: default (8000 rounds/cell), redundancy (9600), percolation (6400),
correlated-churn (6400), fullscale (192, the deliberately lighter 1e6 check).
Omitted: the smoke runs, and an earlier 144-rounds/cell redundancy grid whose
sampling error produced a non-monotonic delivery curve -- superseded, and the
reason the kept grid samples 9600.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:57 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
73aa71dc90
pd report: correlated-outage study, and 10^6 scaling confirmed
Closes the two open items from the review.

3.9 correlated (AS/region) outages, from configs/correlated-churn.yaml at 6400
rounds/cell: clustered failure does NOT fragment the network -- the live coverage
holds at 1.000 at every degree through 80% churn, and the percolation threshold
of 3.5 never appears, because removing a failure domain removes a whole
neighbourhood and leaves every surviving one intact. At degree 4 and 70% churn,
scattered failure annihilates the network (live coverage 0.001, delivery 0.000)
while the same number of clustered failures still delivers 30% of messages. The
cost is that dead domains become unreachable islands, so all-node coverage falls
instead. This reverses the caveat previously written, which asserted correlated
outages would degrade coverage faster; 3.5 uncorrelated threshold is in fact the
conservative case for the operating network.

10^6: the fullscale run confirms the results carry -- adversary closed forms
reproduced to 1.6e-4 at a million nodes, coverage under churn indistinguishable
from 10^5, delivery still tracking (1-u)^hops, and full delay up only 5.8% from
10^5. It samples 192 rounds/cell against 8000, so it is recorded as a scaling
check rather than a source of headline numbers, and the tables are not restated
from it.

Remaining churn caveat is now the honest one: adversarially placed churn (a cut
set rather than a random or clustered set) is still unmodelled, as are
heavy-tailed AS sizes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:57 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
0f125b40c6
pd: correlated AS/region churn, and two report caveats corrected
Uncorrelated churn alone was incomplete: real outages take out a datacentre, AS
or region as a unit. Adds failure domains and a correlated churn mode, plus the
metric needed to tell the two apart.

- n_regions / region_locality: nodes belong to equal-sized failure domains, and
  a configurable share of each node peers inside its own domain. Locality is what
  makes a failure domain a connectivity domain -- with region-blind peering,
  dropping whole regions removes a uniformly random set of nodes and is
  indistinguishable from uniform churn. The locality matchings keep the graph
  exactly d-regular (they change where peers are, never how many).
- churn_mode = uniform | regional, swept per topology so both modes are compared
  on the same graph at an identical dead-node count.
- frac_reached_live: coverage of the *responsive* network, alongside coverage of
  all nodes. The two move in opposite directions under correlated failure, so one
  number could not express the result.

Measured (degree 4, 20 domains, 75% locality, half the network dead): clustered
failure leaves the survivors fully connected -- live coverage 1.000 and delivery
equal to the live-relay rate, i.e. nothing lost to routing -- where the same
number of scattered failures gives 0.857 live coverage and loses delivery to
broken routes. Correlated outages are gentler on the survivors than uniform
churn, while stranding the dead domains. Verify check 8 anchors this.

Also, per review of the caveats: exact d-regularity is a protocol requirement
rather than a modelling simplification, and the timing-correlation adversary is
deferred because it is only meaningful once the network emits cover traffic,
which this simulator does not yet do.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:56 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
44e5d25fe3
pd report: state the tested size range honestly (10^5, not 10^6)
The headline claimed the findings covered "the sizes tested (10^3-10^6)" and the
method note claimed exactness "including 10^6", but no run behind this report
exceeds N = 100000 -- 10^6 is a capability of the simulator (make sweep-fullscale)
that was never exercised for these numbers. Claims now match the measurements,
with an explicit caveat in section 5 distinguishing the three decades actually
measured from the extrapolation to 10^6.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:56 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
81c48a38ab
pd review: model completeness, stale numbers, figure coherence
Correctness/completeness pass over the blend material only (TSI untouched).

- report Model section (2) was missing two of the six axes: messaging
  redundancy (R cascades, first-arrival combination) and the emission/linking
  model (30 s stake-proportional cadence, what counts as linked) were defined
  only inline in the findings;
- method note still claimed 200 rounds x 8 topologies, contradicting the 1000
  x 8 the tables now come from;
- design guidance carried two superseded numbers: worst-case observation as
  "+0.15 absolute" (it saturates at 1.000 at degree 8, f_adv 0.2) and the
  redundancy example (0.34 -> 0.72, measured 0.342 -> 0.713);
- figure references were incoherent: Figs 2 and 14 were cited in the text but
  never shown, and Fig 8 was shown but never cited. All 15 embedded figures are
  now cited and all citations resolve;
- simulator README listed two parquets for smoke (there are three) and omitted
  redundancy from the propagation/deanon column lists.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:56 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
9b03a68a84
Add linkability, messaging redundancy and churn percolation to pd; report
Extends the pd Blend simulator along two axes the deanonymization model
opened up, adds the reports/blend/pd report of record, and fixes three
correctness defects found while reviewing the result.

Linkability over time (pd.linkability):
- time to link an emitter ~ 30s*ln(1/(1-alpha))/(stake*q): inversely
  proportional to stake, so a 5% staker is linked in ~2 days and a 0.001%
  staker only after ~27 years;
- time to certify a node's stake >= theta from the count of attributable
  observations (relative precision ~1/sqrt(N)): sizing a node costs 100-400x
  more than identifying it, and sub-0.1% stake is practically unlearnable.
Both are closed forms over the exact deanonymization rates and a
stake-proportional 30 s emission cadence, checked against a Monte-Carlo of
the emission process in verify.

Messaging redundancy (R independent cascades per emission, R = 1..4):
- `redundancy` knob threaded through config/rng/propagation/engine/metrics/
  sweep; a node receives from whichever cascade reaches it first, so arrival
  times combine element-wise. Delivery and capture both follow 1-(1-x)^R, so
  redundancy trades reliability against anonymity and divides time-to-link
  by ~R. Measured: delivery 0.34 -> 0.81 at 30% churn for R = 1 -> 4, while a
  1%-staker's time to link falls 10 d -> 2.5 d.
- Redundancy buys NO coverage: a cascade only delivers if the sender could
  already route to its relay, so every delivered cascade floods the sender's
  own component. Coverage is flat in R to four decimals at every degree.
- Near the percolation threshold the cascades fail together rather than
  independently, so redundancy under-delivers against 1-(1-p1)^R there.

Churn percolation (configs/percolation.yaml, verify check 7):
- the flood only crosses responsive nodes, so it lives on the responsive
  sub-graph -- site percolation on a d-regular graph. A network survives churn
  only up to u_c = 1 - 1/(degree-1); measured collapse lands on the predicted
  threshold for every degree (3 -> 0.50, 6 -> 0.80, 16 -> 0.93), which inverts
  into the sizing rule degree > 1 + 1/(1-u).

Correctness fixes:
- redundancy delay used the fastest cascade's own full delay, which
  over-states it (min-max vs max-min); now the element-wise earliest arrival,
  reducing exactly to the single-cascade model at R = 1 (test);
- the "redundancy improves coverage" claim was false in both the report and
  the simulator README -- removed and replaced with the measured result;
- per-hop latency is degree-dependent (1.5 s at degree 16 to 2.7 s at degree
  3), not a flat 1.6 s; and the worst-case observation figure was averaged
  over degrees -- at degree 8 and f_adv = 0.2 it is 0.83 -> 1.000.

Statistics: round counts raised for resolution rather than speed -- 8000
rounds per cell in the main sweep, 9600 in the redundancy study, 6400 in the
percolation study, giving SEM <= 0.009 on every delivery rate and <= 0.04 s
on every delay mean. The previous redundancy grid (144 rounds/cell) produced a
non-monotonic delivery curve; it is now monotonic and within 0.015 of theory.
Adversary and deanonymization metrics remain closed-form and exact.

reports/blend/pd: the report of record -- peering-degree trade-offs across
speed, observation, eclipse, deanonymization and reliability, plus the
time-to-link, stake-inference, redundancy and churn-threshold sections, with
21 figures of record and an explicit sampling-error statement.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 17:59:55 +02:00