Skip to content

about-cryptarchia: 'key deletion protocol / forward security for past slots' is stale — removed in LIP-83 v1.1.0 #413

Description

@xAlisher

Where

docs/blockchain/concepts/about-cryptarchia.md — the leadership-election paragraph ends with:

A key deletion protocol used in the maintenance of the note's secret key ensures that an adaptive adversary who corrupts an honest participant will not be able to generate proofs of leadership for past slots.

Problem

That sentence describes Ouroboros Crypsinous, not shipped Cryptarchia. The key-evolution / adaptive-adversary protection was explicitly removed from the Proof of Leadership. Per LIP-83 (Proof of Leadership) docs/blockchain/raw/cryptarchia-proof-of-leadership.md:

  • Revision History 1.1.0 (2026-01-29): "Remove the protection against adaptive adversary from PoL removing a non-enforced feature, simplifying work for engineers, improving UX and performances of PoL and PoQ."
  • § Comparison with Original Crypsinous PoL: "we don't include the protection against adaptive adversaries that cannot be enforced by the chain or incentivized… There is no leader note evolution mechanism anymore… Crypsinous forced us to maintain a parallel note commitment set integrating evolving notes over time. This requirement is removed now."

So the shipped PoL uses a static note secret key with no ratchet/erase. The doc's guarantee ("cannot generate proofs of leadership for past slots") is the opposite of current behaviour, and it links the Crypsinous paper as if it were the implemented design.

Why it matters

It's load-bearing for anyone reasoning about PoL security properties (e.g. whether past leadership is re-provable — it is, under the current design). The stale claim points builders at a guarantee the chain no longer makes.

Suggested fix

Replace the last sentence to reflect LIP-83 — e.g. note that Cryptarchia's PoL does not include Crypsinous's key-evolution/deletion (a deliberate, documented simplification, LIP-83 §Comparison with Original Crypsinous PoL), rather than asserting forward security for past slots. Happy to open a PR if useful.

Secondary occurrence

The same sentence appears in logos-co/logos-lips at docs/blockchain/deprecated/digital-signature/appendices/the-logos-blockchain-whitepaper.md — that path is under deprecated/, so likely intentional/archived; flagging for awareness, not necessarily a fix.


Found while cross-checking PoL/reward semantics against LIP-83/LIP-85 for an EcoDev design exercise. (Label suggestion: documentation — I don't have label-apply permission on this repo, so noting it here.)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions