Rename forge to mint

shelley-ma/formal-spec/mps-language.tex

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ \section{Script Constructors and Evaluation}
 
 We have updated the
 $\fun{validateScripts}$ function, to allow for the validation of both the
-multi-signature scripts and forging policy scripts, calling the appropriate
+multi-signature scripts and minting policy scripts, calling the appropriate
 evaluator for each type of script, see Figure~\ref{fig:functions-validate}.
 
 \begin{note}
@@ -108,9 +108,9 @@ \section{Script Constructors and Evaluation}
 %     & \text {checks the msig script}\\~\\
 %     %
 %     & \fun{evalFPS}
-%      ~\type{DoForge}~\var{pid}~ \var{slot}~\var{vhks} ~\var{txb}~\var{spentouts} \\
-%     &~~~~ =~ \var{pid} \notin \dom~(\fun{forge}~\var{txb}) \\
-%     & \text {checks that script hash of this script is not an asset ID being forged by tx}  \\~\\
+%      ~\type{DoMint}~\var{pid}~ \var{slot}~\var{vhks} ~\var{txb}~\var{spentouts} \\
+%     &~~~~ =~ \var{pid} \notin \dom~(\fun{mint}~\var{txb}) \\
+%     & \text {checks that script hash of this script is not an asset ID being minted by tx}  \\~\\
 %     %
 %     & \fun{evalFPS}
 %      ~\type{SignedByPIDToken}~\var{pid}~ \var{slot}~\var{vhks} ~\var{txb}~\var{spentouts} \\
@@ -180,12 +180,12 @@ \section{Script Constructors and Evaluation}
 %     & \fun{whitelist} \in\ScriptMSig\to\Script  \\~\\
 %     %
 %     & \type{whitelist}  ~\var{msig}~ =~ \type{RequireOr}~
-%       (\type{RequireAll}~(\type{DoForge};~\type{JustMSig}~\var{msig});~\\
+%       (\type{RequireAll}~(\type{DoMint};~\type{JustMSig}~\var{msig});~\\
 %     &~~~~~~ \type{RequireAll}~(\type{AssetToAddress}~\Nothing~\Nothing ;\\
-%     &~~~~~~ (\type{Not}~\type{DoForge});~\type{SignedByPIDToken})) \\
+%     &~~~~~~ (\type{Not}~\type{DoMint});~\type{SignedByPIDToken})) \\
 %     %
 %     & \text{msig is some MSig script containing signatures of some accreditation authority} \\
-%     & \text{i.e. this authority can do any forging or spending of this token} \\~\\
+%     & \text{i.e. this authority can do any minting or spending of this token} \\~\\
 %     %
 %     & (\fun{hashScript}~(\type{SpendsCur}~(\fun{hashScript}~(\type{whitelist}~\var{msig}))),~ \var{tkns}) \\
 %     & \text{an example of an output spending which requires to be on a whitelist made by msig authority}

shelley-ma/formal-spec/transactions.tex

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
       & \powerset{\TxIn} & \fun{txinputs}& \text{inputs}\\
       &\times ~(\Ix \mapsto \TxOut) & \fun{txouts}& \text{outputs}\\
       & \times~ \seqof{\DCert} & \fun{txcerts}& \text{certificates}\\
-       & \times ~\hldiff{\Value}  & \hldiff{\fun{forge}} &\text{value forged}\\
+       & \times ~\hldiff{\Value}  & \hldiff{\fun{mint}} &\text{value minted}\\
        & \times ~\Coin & \fun{txfee} &\text{non-script fee}\\
        & \times ~\hldiff{\Slot^? \times \Slot^?} & \hldiff{\fun{txvldt}} & \text{validity interval}\\
        & \times~ \Wdrl  & \fun{txwdrls} &\text{reward withdrawals}\\
@@ -80,29 +80,29 @@ \subsection*{New Script Type}
   \item output-locking scripts,
   \item certificate validation,
   \item reward withdrawals, or
-  \item as forging scripts (see below).
+  \item as minting scripts (see below).
 \end{itemize}
 
-\subsection*{The Forge Field}
+\subsection*{The Mint Field}
 
 The body of a transaction with multi-asset support contains one additional
-field, the $\fun{forge}$ field.
-The $\fun{forge}$ field is a term of type $\Value$, which contains
+field, the $\fun{mint}$ field.
+The $\fun{mint}$ field is a term of type $\Value$, which contains
 tokens the transaction is putting into or taking out of
 circulation. Here, by "circulation", we mean specifically "the UTxO on the
 ledger". Since the administrative fields cannot contain tokens other than Ada,
-and Ada cannot be forged (this is enforced by the UTxO rule, see Figure~\ref{fig:rules:utxo-shelley}),
-they are not affected in any way by forging.
+and Ada cannot be minted (this is enforced by the UTxO rule, see Figure~\ref{fig:rules:utxo-shelley}),
+they are not affected in any way by minting.
 
 Putting tokens into circulation is done with positive values in the $\Quantity$
-fields $\fun{forge}$ field, and taking tokens out of circulation can be done
+fields $\fun{mint}$ field, and taking tokens out of circulation can be done
 with negative quantities.
 
-A transaction cannot simply forge arbitrary tokens. Restrictions on
+A transaction cannot simply mint arbitrary tokens. Restrictions on
 Multi-Asset tokens are imposed, for each asset with ID $\var{pid}$, by a script
 with the hash $\var{pid}$. Whether a given transaction adheres to the restrictions
 prescribed by its script is verified as part of the processing of the transaction.
-The forging mechanism is detailed in Section~\ref{sec:utxo}.
+The minting mechanism is detailed in Section~\ref{sec:utxo}.
 
 \subsection*{Transaction Body}
 
@@ -111,12 +111,12 @@ \subsection*{Transaction Body}
 \begin{itemize}
   \item a change in the type of $\TxOut$ --- instead of
 $\Coin$, the transaction outputs now have type $\Value$.
-  \item the addition of the $\fun{forge}$ field to the transaction body
+  \item the addition of the $\fun{mint}$ field to the transaction body
   \item the time-to-live slot number (which had the accessor $\fun{txttl}$),
   has been replaced with a validity interval with accessor $\fun{txvldt}$,
   both endpoints of which are optional
 \end{itemize}
 
 The only change to the types related to transaction witnessing is the addition
-of forging policy scripts to the underlying $\Script$ type, so we do not include the
+of minting policy scripts to the underlying $\Script$ type, so we do not include the
 whole $\Tx$ type here.

shelley-ma/formal-spec/utxo.tex

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ \subsection*{UTxO Helper Functions}
   \begin{align*}
     & \fun{consumed} \in \PParams \to \UTxO \to \TxBody \to \hldiff{\Value} \\
     & \consumed{pp}{utxo}{txb} = \\
-    & ~~\ubalance{(\txins{txb} \restrictdom \var{utxo})} ~+~ \hldiff{\fun{forge}~\var{txb}} \\
+    & ~~\ubalance{(\txins{txb} \restrictdom \var{utxo})} ~+~ \hldiff{\fun{mint}~\var{txb}} \\
     &~~+~\hldiff{\fun{coinToValue}}(\fun{wbalance}~(\fun{txwdrls}~{txb})~+~ \keyRefunds{pp}{txb})
     \nextdef
     & \fun{produced} \in \PParams \to \StakePools \to \TxBody \to \hldiff{\Value} \\
@@ -70,38 +70,38 @@ \subsection*{UTxO Helper Functions}
   \item The $\fun{consumed}$ and $\fun{produced}$ calculations are similar to their Shelley
     counterparts, with the following changes: 1) They return elements of $\Value$, which
     the administrative fields of type $\Coin$ have to be converted to, via $\fun{coinToValue}$.
-    2) $\fun{consumed}$ also contains the $\fun{forge}$ field of the transaction.
+    2) $\fun{consumed}$ also contains the $\fun{mint}$ field of the transaction.
     This is explained below.
 \end{itemize}
 
-\subsection*{Forging and the Preservation of Value}
+\subsection*{Minting and the Preservation of Value}
 What does it mean to preserve the value of non-Ada tokens, since they
 are put in and taken out of circulation by the users themselves?
 
 For the following discussion, we focus on a single arbitrary
 $\var{pid}$ that is not $\mathsf{adaPolicy}$. If a transaction $\var{tx}$
-does not forge any tokens with policy ID $\var{pid}$, the preservation
+does not mint any tokens with policy ID $\var{pid}$, the preservation
 of value reduces to an equation that the sum of inputs and the sum of
 outputs are equal, which is exactly the same condition as for Shelley,
 except that there are no administrative fields. If a transactions
-forges tokens of that policy ID, then the sum of inputs and the sum of
+mints tokens of that policy ID, then the sum of inputs and the sum of
 outputs will differ, and that difference has to be exactly the value
-of the $\fun{forge}$ field. Note that this means that the
-$\fun{forge}$ field can also contain negative quantities.
+of the $\fun{mint}$ field. Note that this means that the
+$\fun{mint}$ field can also contain negative quantities.
 
-To balance the preservation of value equation, the $\fun{forge}$ field
+To balance the preservation of value equation, the $\fun{mint}$ field
 could be included in either $\fun{consumed}$ or $\fun{produced}$, with
-the only difference being the sign of the $\fun{forge}$ field. We
+the only difference being the sign of the $\fun{mint}$ field. We
 include it on the $\fun{consumed}$ side, because this means that
-forging a positive quantity increases the amount of tokens on the
-ledger, and forging a negative quantity reduces the amount of tokens on
+minting a positive quantity increases the amount of tokens on the
+ledger, and minting a negative quantity reduces the amount of tokens on
 the ledger.
 
-Note that the UTXO rule specifically forbids the forging of Ada, and
+Note that the UTXO rule specifically forbids the minting of Ada, and
 thus in the case of Ada, the preservation of value equation is exactly
 the same as in Shelley.
 
-The forging scripts themselves are not evaluated at part of the UTXO, but instead
+The minting scripts themselves are not evaluated at part of the UTXO, but instead
 as part of witnessing, i.e. in the UTXOW rule, see Figure~\ref{fig:functions-witnesses}.
 
 \subsection*{The UTXO Transition Rule}
@@ -114,9 +114,9 @@ \subsection*{The UTXO Transition Rule}
   slot is replaced with the check that the current slot is inside the validity interval
 
   \item In the preservation of value calculation (which looks the same as in
-  Shelley), the value in the $\fun{forge}$ field is taken into account.
+  Shelley), the value in the $\fun{mint}$ field is taken into account.
 
-  \item The transaction is not forging any Ada.
+  \item The transaction is not minting any Ada.
 
   \item The $\Value$ of each output is constrained from below by a
     $\Value$ that contains the product of $\var{adaPerUTxOByte}$ and the
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ \subsection*{The UTXO Transition Rule}
       \\
       ~
       \\
-      \hldiff{\mathsf{adaPolicy}~\notin \supp{\fun{forge}~txb}} \\
+      \hldiff{\mathsf{adaPolicy}~\notin \supp{\fun{mint}~txb}} \\
       ~\\
       \hldiff{\forall txout \in \txouts{txb},} \\
       \hldiff{txout \geq \fun{coinToValue}(\fun{outputSize}~{txout} * \fun{adaPerUTxOByte}~pp)} \\~
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ \subsection*{Witnessing}
     \cup & ~~\{ \fun{stakeCred_{r}}~\var{a} \mid a \in \dom (\AddrRWDScr
            \restrictdom \fun{txwdrls}~\var{txb}) \} \\
       \cup & ~~(\AddrScr \cap \fun{certWitsNeeded}~{txb}) \\
-      \cup & ~~\hldiff{\supp~(\fun{forge}~\var{txb})} \\
+      \cup & ~~\hldiff{\supp~(\fun{mint}~\var{txb})} \\
     & \where \\
     & ~~~~~~~ \var{txb}~=~\txbody{tx}
   \end{align*}
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ \subsection*{Witnessing}
 
 Figure~\ref{fig:functions-witnesses} contains the changed definition
 of the function $\fun{scriptsNeeded}$, to also collect the scripts
-necessary for forging.
+necessary for minting.
 
 Recall here that the $\Script$ type has changed to include
 not just multi-signature script type $\ScriptMSig$, but also another native (i.e. evaluated
@@ -238,6 +238,6 @@ \subsection*{Witnessing}
 
 Note that, same as in Shelley, the validation function called by the
 UTXOW rule, which checks a given script, does not know the purpose of the script
-(forging, output-locking, etc.).
+(minting, output-locking, etc.).
 All scripts are run in the same way, with $\fun{validateScript}$ being responsible
 for calling the evaluator appropriate for the specific type of script.

shelley-ma/formal-spec/value.tex

@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ \subsection*{Representing Multi-asset Types and Values}
     \emph{token bundles}.
 
   \item $\mathsf{adaPolicy}$ and $\mathsf{adaName}$ are the $\PolicyID$ and $\AssetName$ of Ada respectively.
-    It is not possible to forge any token with the $\PolicyID$ $\mathsf{adaPolicy}$, which means that every
+    It is not possible to mint any token with the $\PolicyID$ $\mathsf{adaPolicy}$, which means that every
     token in the UTxO belonging to $\mathsf{adaPolicy}$ will have $\AssetName$ $\mathsf{adaName}$.
 
   \item $\fun{coinToValue}$ and $\fun{valueToCoin}$ convert between the two types,