[codex] Name the proofchain primitive#494
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (7)
WalkthroughThis PR introduces "proofchain" as the central organizing concept throughout ProvekIt's documentation. Changes span the README, landing docs, pitch, product description, and formal papers, all reinforcing that ProvekIt produces portable, signed, locally verifiable chains of content-addressed evidence. ChangesProofchain Concept Introduction and Documentation
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/papers/03-substrate-not-blockchain.md`:
- Line 110: Replace the unhyphenated compound adjective "Turing complete
substrate" with the hyphenated form "Turing-complete substrate" in the sentence
that reads "A Turing complete substrate already contains every program a smart
contract could embed; the substrate is the bigger set." to correctly form the
compound adjective.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 54c54262-7823-4d64-a145-ee7a739c2316
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
README.mddocs/explanation/pitch.mddocs/explanation/product.mddocs/explanation/proofchain.mddocs/index.mddocs/papers/03-substrate-not-blockchain.mddocs/papers/README.md
| Once you accept that, "what should the substrate add next?" becomes a malformed question. There is nothing above Turing complete. Anyone proposing a more general substrate is either building a less general one (a special-purpose chain, a fixed VM, a typed but narrower envelope) or reinventing the same four invariants under a different brand. The design space above the substrate is full of applications. The space at the substrate level is small because it has to be. This is why §3's "EVM is the floor" is structural rather than aspirational. The ceiling is theorem, not promise. | ||
|
|
||
| Conventional blockchains pick one tape format (state-machine deltas) and one consensus discipline (totally ordered chain over a globally shared ledger). That is a restriction on the substrate, not an extension. They left generality on the floor to buy something they did not actually need (consensus on subjective state) for the thing they actually wanted (verifiable transitions). Strip the consensus, keep the verification. You get more, not less. A Turing complete substrate already contains every program a smart contract could embed; the substrate is the bigger set. | ||
| Conventional blockchains pick one tape format (state-machine deltas) and one consensus discipline (totally ordered chain over a globally shared ledger). That is a restriction on the substrate, not an extension. They buy timestamp-server ordering for state transitions. Proofchains do not need that ordering for logical validity. Strip the consensus, keep the verification. You get more, not less. A Turing complete substrate already contains every program a smart contract could embed; the substrate is the bigger set. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hyphenate compound adjective at Line 110.
Use “Turing-complete substrate” instead of “Turing complete substrate” for correct compound-adjective usage.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~110-~110: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...cation. You get more, not less. A Turing complete substrate already contains ever...
(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/papers/03-substrate-not-blockchain.md` at line 110, Replace the
unhyphenated compound adjective "Turing complete substrate" with the hyphenated
form "Turing-complete substrate" in the sentence that reads "A Turing complete
substrate already contains every program a smart contract could embed; the
substrate is the bigger set." to correctly form the compound adjective.
TSavo
force-pushed
the
codex/proofchain-docs
branch
4 times, most recently
from
8eb8587 to
1a601c5
Compare
TSavo
force-pushed
the
codex/proofchain-docs
branch
from
1a601c5 to
97c33d6
Compare
1 participant
Summary
proofchainas the high-level name for the linked evidence object ProvekIt already buildsScope
Docs only. No protocol, catalog, schema, or generated artifact changes.
Validation
git diff origin/main...HEAD --checksoftware truth claimsand12-proofchainsreferencesSummary by CodeRabbit