mirror of
https://github.com/logos-blockchain/research.git
synced 2026-08-07 03:33:33 +00:00
e3da5c8fca
Full pass over every spec claim the report makes, against the uncle-references RFC at 521f20dd (v1.2.1, 2026-08-05). Thirteen claims check out verbatim, including the two that carry recommendations: PRECISION = 1e3 with f_p = truncate(f * PRECISION) confirms row 14's premise exactly, and "carry no fork-choice weight and grant no reward, a proposer has no incentive to deviate" confirms the uncle-reward row and implication (ii). MAX_UNCLES = 4, w_u = W/f, W <= floor(0.6k), T = 6k/f, epoch = 10*floor(k/f), the counting rules, duplicate handling and counting-only status all hold. Two claims did not. The W row rebutted "a larger window would gain little". That sentence is gone: the rationale was rewritten in the same revision that introduced W, and now justifies the UPPER bound W <= floor(0.6k) on two grounds (the candidate is still in the proposer's block tree; referencing blocks stay in the window's own epoch) while asserting of the value only that it "comfortably captures the forks worth referencing". Rebutting deleted text is worse than useless here, because the new bound is 1296 slots at k = 2160 -- so this report's own 450-600 widening near rho ~ 1 is already permitted and needs no spec change, which is a better outcome than the tension the row used to claim. What the spec still does not give is a LOWER bound, which is what the 7/f floor supplies. The intro said the spec flags w_u and MAX_UNCLES as "provisional", leaving their tuning "as an open task of [Analysis] Total Stake Inference". The word provisional appears in no spec document at any revision. The open task is real but different: analysis-total-stake-inference.md records that its analysis covers the design WITHOUT uncle references and that re-analyzing with uncle-inclusive block counts "is an open task" -- which is what this report does, so the claim gets stronger by being stated accurately. Also pins the revision audited, and notes that these rules live on the in-flight RFC rather than the released logos-lips copy, which is still 1.1.0 with no uncle references at all. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>