{
"summary": "Deep research harness — fan-out web searches, fetch sources, adversarially verify claims, synthesize a cited report.",
"agentCount": 112,
"logs": [
"Q: Research the state of the art in peer-to-peer (P2P) / decentralized computation:…",
"Decomposed into 6 angles: Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks), Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical), P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics), Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation, Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources), Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers)",
"Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical): 6 results",
"Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources): 6 results",
"Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks): 6 results",
"Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks): 4 novel (2 filtered)",
"Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers): 6 results",
"Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers): 4 novel (2 filtered)",
"Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation: 6 results",
"Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation: 5 novel (1 filtered)",
"P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics): 6 results",
"P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics): 4 novel (2 filtered)",
"Fetched 29 sources → 128 claims → verifying top 25",
"\"Jolt is a zkVM based on the Lasso lookup argument …\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Prime Intellect trained INTELLECT-2, a 32-billion-…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Jolt reduces zkVM proving overhead to below 6 orde…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Jolt proves over 5x faster than RISC Zero and up t…\": 0-3 ✗",
"\"Trustless verification of computation from untrust…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"INTELLECT-2 is a 32B-parameter model trained via g…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Bacalhau is a distributed compute orchestration fr…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Distributed compute over untrusted nodes is verifi…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Bacalhau executes jobs in standardized runtimes (D…\": 2-1 ✓",
"\"Bacalhau does not provide a trustless verification…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"TrueBit verifies arbitrary off-chain computation v…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Arbitrum's interactive fraud proof system resolves…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"The verification game's binary-search dispute idea…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"The on-chain verification cost is logarithmic in c…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"On-chain verification on Ethereum is limited to va…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"The fraud-proof trust model is a 1-of-N honest-par…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"CRDTs automatically merge concurrent state changes…\": 1-2 ✗",
"\"The only class of concurrent change a CRDT cannot …\": 0-3 ✗",
"\"Autobase's view is produced by deterministically a…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Writer nodes carry explicit causal references to p…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"CRDTs are a theoretical technique for implementing…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Autobase coordinates multiple writers via a vote-a…\": 3-0 ✓",
"[stall] agent \"v2:Autobase is a multiwriter data structure\" stalled (no progress) after 194s — retrying (1/5)",
"\"Autobase is a multiwriter data structure that comb…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Autobase produces a deterministic total ordering (…\": 3-0 ✓",
"\"Correct deterministic computation in Autobase requ…\": 3-0 ✓",
"Verify done: 25 claims → 22 confirmed, 3 killed"
],
"result": {
"question": "Research the state of the art in peer-to-peer (P2P) / decentralized computation: how computation (not just data/files) is distributed, coordinated, and verified across untrusted or trust-minimized peers.\n\nCover these dimensions and name concrete systems, papers, and projects with their tradeoffs:\n\n1. INCREMENTAL / DETERMINISTIC COMPUTATION OVER LOGS: event-sourcing / deterministic fold over append-only logs as a computation model. How CRDTs, Autobase (Holepunch/Hypercore), and local-first systems (Ink & Switch) treat \"mutable state = deterministic reduction of an immutable event log.\" Where this scales and where it breaks.\n\n2. DISTRIBUTED TASK EXECUTION / COMPUTE GRIDS (P2P): volunteer/grid computing (BOINC), serverless-over-P2P, content-addressed compute and memoization (e.g. keyed by code hash + input hash), Bacalhau / compute-over-data (IPFS/Filecoin), Golem, iExec, Nunet, Ray-style distributed execution but decentralized. Deterministic/reproducible builds (Nix) as content-addressed computation.\n\n3. TRUSTLESS / TRUST-MINIMIZED VERIFICATION OF COMPUTATION: the core hard problem. Verifiable computation, deterministic re-execution, replication+voting, trusted execution environments (TEEs/SGX), optimistic fraud proofs (optimistic rollups, Truebit, interactive verification games / refereed delegation), and succinct proofs: zkVMs and the 2023-2026 wave (RISC Zero, SP1/Succinct, Jolt, Cairo/StarkWare, zkWASM, Nexus). Proof generation cost vs verification cost tradeoffs and where they are practical today.\n\n4. DECENTRALIZED PHYSICAL/AI COMPUTE NETWORKS (DePIN): the recent wave of decentralized GPU/AI training & inference markets — Akash, io.net, Render, Gensyn (verifiable ML training), Bittensor, Prime Intellect (decentralized training / DiLoCo / OpenDiLoCo), Petals-style distributed inference. What is real vs hype.\n\n5. ACADEMIC FOUNDATIONS: verifiable computation history (Goldwasser-Kalai-Rothblum / interactive proofs, PCP), secure multiparty computation (MPC), homomorphic encryption (FHE) for private computation, BFT consensus as computation agreement, and how these map onto P2P settings.\n\n6. WHERE THE HOLEPUNCH / HYPERCORE ECOSYSTEM SITS: given Hypercore (append-only logs), Autobase (multi-writer deterministic views), Hyperswarm (DHT/transport), and content-addressed stores — what's natively solved (incremental deterministic computation, content-addressed output caching) vs what would require building (spatial task distribution, trustless verification of others' compute). What an architect building \"chunked computation\" on this stack realistically can and cannot do today.\n\nPrioritize: concrete named systems with how-they-work mechanics, honest maturity assessment (production vs research vs vaporware) as of 2025-2026, and the fundamental tradeoffs (especially proof cost, determinism requirements, and trust models). Surface key papers and primary sources.",
"summary": "As of 2025-2026, P2P/decentralized computation splits cleanly into three maturity tiers. (1) Incremental deterministic computation over append-only logs is PRODUCTION-READY and is exactly what the Holepunch/Hypercore stack natively solves: Autobase materializes mutable state as a deterministic fold over immutable, causally-linked logs, with multi-writer ordering resolved by DAG linearization + vote-quorum, and CRDTs provide the same coordination-free strong-eventual-consistency model in local-first systems. (2) Trustless verification of others' computation remains the hard, unsolved-natively problem; the field has converged on a small set of mechanisms with sharply different cost/trust profiles — interactive fraud proofs (TrueBit, Arbitrum) that bisect a disputed computation down to a single re-executable step giving logarithmic on-chain verification cost under a 1-of-N honest-party assumption, succinct proofs/zkVMs (Jolt's sumcheck/Lasso lineage vs RISC Zero/SP1's FRI-STARK lineage) whose proving overhead has dropped from ~8 to below 6 orders of magnitude but is still enormous, and lightweight statistical checks like locality-sensitive-hashing verification (TOPLOC). (3) Decentralized physical/AI compute is REAL at the orchestration and even training layer — Bacalhau moves containerized/WASM compute to data (but uses a trusted coordinated orchestrator, not trustless verification), and Prime Intellect actually trained and Apache-2.0-released INTELLECT-2, a 32B model, via permissionless globally-distributed async RL with on-chain-triggered TOPLOC validation of untrusted workers. The fundamental tradeoff throughout is that strong trustlessness (succinct proofs) costs orders of magnitude of compute, cheaper interactive/optimistic verification needs a determinism precondition plus a synchronous dispute window, and the cheapest schemes (replication, LSH fingerprinting, trusted orchestration) weaken the trust model.",
"findings": [
{
"claim": "Autobase (Holepunch/Hypercore) is a production multi-writer data structure implementing event sourcing: mutable state is a deterministic reduction/fold over immutable, causally-linked append-only logs, with a deterministic total ordering derived from DAG analysis and a vote-quorum mechanism.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged 5 unanimous claims (15,16,17,18,19,20)",
"sources": [
"https://github.com/holepunchto/autobase/blob/main/README.md",
"https://github.com/holepunchto/autobase/blob/main/DESIGN.md"
],
"evidence": "README: 'A multiwriter data structure... Using the event sourcing pattern, writers append blocks which are linearized into an eventually consistent order' and 'A view is one or more hypercores whose contents are created by deterministically applying the linearized nodes from writers.' DESIGN.md: ordering is 'a deterministic linearisation... achieved by traversing the graph according to clocks,' tie-broken by key comparison; 'each node in the graph accumulates votes from other writers (max 1 per writer)' and reaches quorum once 'referenced by a majority of writers.' Determinism is a hard requirement: apply() must mutate only its view argument and open() derive only from its store, because reordered messages are 'undone and reapplied internally' and external state cannot be rolled back. Verified against shipped source (lib/linearizer.js, topolist.js, clock.js — logical/Lamport clock, not wall-clock; no external consensus)."
},
{
"claim": "CRDTs are the local-first / collaborative-app analog of this model: a coordination-free technique providing strong eventual consistency without a central server.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "3-0 (claim 21); note two related Ink&Switch over-generalizations were refuted",
"sources": [
"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.02618"
],
"evidence": "Collabs paper (Weidner et al.): 'Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) are a promising theoretical technique for implementing collaboration frameworks... while still providing strong eventual consistency.' SEC = replicas converge automatically without consensus/coordination (Shapiro et al. 2011 foundation). CAVEAT: adversarial verification REFUTED two stronger local-first framings — that CRDTs make 'all concurrent changes take effect' and that 'the only unresolvable conflict is concurrent updates to the same property of the same object' — so do not overstate CRDT automatic-merge guarantees."
},
{
"claim": "Interactive fraud proofs verify arbitrary off-chain computation by bisecting a disputed execution (binary search) down to a single instruction step that a bounded on-chain arbiter re-executes directly — giving verification cost logarithmic in computation length, under a 1-of-N honest-party trust model that depends on deterministic state transitions.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged 6 unanimous claims (9,10,11,12,13,14)",
"sources": [
"https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~teutsch/papers/truebit.pdf",
"https://docs.arbitrum.io/how-arbitrum-works/interactive-fraud-proofs"
],
"evidence": "TrueBit (Teutsch & Reitwiessner, arXiv:1908.04756): a Solver/Challenger 'verification game' narrows the disputed portion over log t / log c rounds until 'the loop converges to the first, disputed computational step, and the Judges explicitly check this step'; total Judge work is O[(log t/log c)(cσ+log c)+2((2σ+1)log s+5+p)] — logarithmic in t, exponentially smaller than the t-step task. The bisection idea is attributed to Canetti, Riva & Rothblum (refereed delegation), which assumed >=1 of k clouds honest — an assumption TrueBit rejects as too strong for a purely rational network. Arbitrum Nitro implements the same: parties 'take turns bisecting their history commitments until they arrive at a single step of instruction' then submit a one-step proof to the OneStepProof contract on Ethereum, which executes only that step. Trust model: 'only a single honest party is required to defend Arbitrum' precisely because 'state transitions are entirely deterministic.' NUANCE: the 1-of-N safety guarantee presupposes L1 censorship-resistance/liveness, a bounded challenge window, and bonding capital; criticisms (verifier's dilemma, economic censorship) target the incentive layer, not the bisection mechanics."
},
{
"claim": "Succinct-proof zkVMs are the strongest (trustless, non-interactive) verification approach and split into two theoretical lineages — Jolt (sumcheck/Lasso lookup argument) vs RISC Zero and SP1 (FRI-based STARKs) — with proving overhead now driven below 6 orders of magnitude, down from a historical ~8.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged claims 0 (3-0) and 1 (3-0)",
"sources": [
"https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/building-jolt/"
],
"evidence": "a16z 'Building Jolt': Jolt is 'based on the Lasso lookup argument and other sumcheck-based techniques' and 'emerged from a different theoretical lineage than STARK-based incumbents' (RISC Zero uses DEEP-ALI + batched FRI; SP1 is FRI/Poseidon2 over BabyBear — both independently confirmed). zkVMs historically added 'about 8 orders of magnitude of overhead compared to native execution'; 'the current version of Jolt brings this overhead below 6 orders of magnitude.' CAVEATS: vendor-authored (a16z built Jolt); baseline is native execution, not peer-reviewed independent benchmark; a separate stronger head-to-head claim ('Jolt 5x faster than RISC Zero / 2x faster than SP1') was REFUTED 0-3. The architectural lineage distinction and the order-of-magnitude overhead figure are sound; the relative speed ranking is not established. Practical takeaway: even 'below 6 OOM' means ~<100,000x native compute to prove — verification is cheap/succinct, proving remains the dominant cost."
},
{
"claim": "Lightweight statistical verification of distributed AI inference is viable: TOPLOC, a locality-sensitive hashing scheme over intermediate activations, detects tampering/precision changes from untrusted workers across heterogeneous GPU hardware, far cheaper than zk-proofs or full re-execution.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged claims 3 (3-0) and 5 (3-0)",
"sources": [
"https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07291",
"https://www.primeintellect.ai/blog/intellect-2-release"
],
"evidence": "INTELLECT-2 paper: 'TOPLOC, which verifies rollouts from untrusted inference workers.' Mechanism (its own ICML 2025 paper, arXiv:2501.16007): LSH over intermediate activations that 'detects unauthorized modifications to models, prompts, or precision' robustly 'across diverse hardware configurations, GPU types, and algebraic reorderings.' Operational loop (Prime Intellect blog): workers upload signed rollout files; 'an on-chain event triggers TOPLOC validators to check them; accepted files feed the trainer, while invalid ones remove the submitting node from the pool.' SCOPING NUANCE: TOPLOC verifies inference/rollout generation, not arbitrary computation, and works by tamper-detection fingerprinting rather than soundness-proven verifiable computation — it is a trust-minimized statistical check, weaker than fraud/validity proofs but vastly cheaper."
},
{
"claim": "Decentralized AI TRAINING at frontier-relevant scale is real, not vaporware: Prime Intellect trained and Apache-2.0-released INTELLECT-2, a 32B-parameter reasoning model, via fully asynchronous globally-distributed RL across a permissionless, heterogeneous swarm of compute contributors.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged claims 2 (3-0) and 4 (3-0)",
"sources": [
"https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07291",
"https://www.primeintellect.ai/blog/intellect-2-release"
],
"evidence": "'The first globally distributed reinforcement learning (RL) training run of a 32 billion parameter language model... across a dynamic, heterogeneous swarm of permissionless compute contributors' using 'fully asynchronous RL.' Strongest anti-vaporware evidence: open weights under Apache 2.0 with full codebase and training logs; improves on QwQ-32B on reasoning benchmarks; corroborated by InfoQ, MarkTechPost. Named infrastructure: PRIME-RL (async RL framework decoupling rollout/training/weight-broadcast), TOPLOC (untrusted-worker verification), SHARDCAST (weight distribution). HONEST QUALIFICATION: not every layer is fully P2P — weight distribution used trusted relay servers, with DHT-based full decentralization planned; the permissionless/untrusted part is the RL rollout/inference worker pool that TOPLOC guards."
},
{
"claim": "Compute-over-data orchestration (Bacalhau) is production but operates a TRUSTED coordinated model, not trustless peer verification — it brings containerized/WASM compute to where data lives, with no fraud/validity proofs or cross-node result verification.",
"confidence": "high",
"vote": "merged claims 6 (3-0), 7 (2-1), 8 (3-0)",
"sources": [
"https://github.com/bacalhau-project/bacalhau"
],
"evidence": "Bacalhau README: 'an open-source distributed compute orchestration framework designed to bring compute to the data'; 'Instead of moving large datasets around networks, Bacalhau makes it easy to execute jobs close to the data's location.' Execution substrate: 'Support for multiple execution engines (Docker, WebAssembly)' — managed/sandboxed runtimes (the WASM path is the basis for content-addressable, deterministic compute-over-data per project reports), not direct host-binary invocation. Trust model: an 'Orchestrator-Compute Model' where 'a dedicated orchestrator coordinates job scheduling, while compute nodes run tasks'; the README addresses data access/permissions but contains NO fraud proofs, validity proofs, result-voting, or deterministic re-execution verification — i.e., trusted/coordinated, not trustless. NUANCE (one dissenting vote on the WASM substrate claim; and historical context): early 0.x 'Compute Over Data' Bacalhau documented determinism as a precondition for possible future verification, but the current production system does not deploy trustless cross-node verification."
}
],
"caveats": "SOURCE QUALITY / BIAS: The zkVM overhead and lineage claims rest on a single vendor source (a16z, who built Jolt); the order-of-magnitude figures and architectural lineage are credible and corroborated, but relative-speed rankings against RISC Zero/SP1 were explicitly refuted (0-3) and should not be repeated. Prime Intellect / TOPLOC claims lean partly on a company blog, but are anchored by two independent arXiv papers (2505.07291, 2501.16007 / ICML 2025) and an Apache-2.0 open-weights artifact, so maturity is well-evidenced.\\n\\nTRUST-MODEL PRECISION: 'Trustless' is used loosely across the field. Properly: succinct proofs (zkVMs) = cryptographically trustless but proving-cost-heavy; interactive/optimistic fraud proofs = trust-minimized (1-of-N honest party) but require determinism + a synchronous dispute window + bonding capital + L1 liveness; TOPLOC = statistical tamper-detection, not soundness-proven; Bacalhau = trusted coordinator. Do not flatten these into one category.\\n\\nDETERMINISM IS THE COMMON GATE: Both Autobase's correctness and fraud-proof verifiability depend on fully deterministic execution; nondeterminism (e.g., GPU floating-point reordering) is precisely why AI compute needs LSH-style schemes (TOPLOC) instead of bit-exact re-execution.\\n\\nTIME-SENSITIVITY: zkVM performance and DePIN/decentralized-training projects move fast (2023-2026 wave); the below-6-OOM figure and INTELLECT-2 'first/at-scale' framing are mid-2025 snapshots likely to be superseded.\\n\\nCOVERAGE GAPS: Several dimensions requested in the brief were NOT covered by surviving verified claims — BOINC/volunteer grid computing, Nix/content-addressed reproducible builds, Golem/iExec/Nunet/Ray, DePIN markets (Akash, io.net, Render, Gensyn, Bittensor, Petals), and the academic MPC/FHE/GKR-PCP/BFT foundations. Treat their absence here as 'not verified in this round,' not 'unimportant.'\"",
"openQuestions": [
"What can an architect realistically build for 'chunked computation' on the Holepunch/Hypercore stack TODAY? The verified claims confirm Autobase natively solves incremental deterministic computation and content-addressed output caching, but trustless verification of OTHERS' compute and spatial/task distribution have no native primitive — would such a system need to bolt on a TrueBit-style dispute game or a TOPLOC-style statistical check, and is the determinism constraint compatible with heterogeneous worker hardware?",
"What is the honest maturity and mechanics of the DePIN GPU/AI markets not verified this round (Akash, io.net, Render, Gensyn's verifiable ML training, Bittensor, Petals-style distributed inference, Prime Intellect's OpenDiLoCo/DiLoCo)? Which are production marketplaces vs research vs token-driven hype?",
"How do the academic foundations (GKR/interactive proofs, PCP, secure multiparty computation, FHE, BFT-as-computation-agreement) actually map onto unstructured P2P settings, and which are practical vs purely theoretical as of 2026?",
"Where exactly does content-addressed memoization (code-hash + input-hash keying) and reproducible builds (Nix) sit relative to verifiable computation — is content-addressing sufficient for trust when builds are deterministic, or only for caching/dedup without solving the trust problem?"
],
"refuted": [
{
"claim": "Jolt proves over 5x faster than RISC Zero and up to 2x faster than SP1 in the authors' benchmarks.",
"vote": "0-3",
"source": "https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/building-jolt/"
},
{
"claim": "CRDTs automatically merge concurrent state changes from different devices so that all changes take effect, without requiring a central server to resolve them.",
"vote": "1-2",
"source": "https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/"
},
{
"claim": "The only class of concurrent change a CRDT cannot automatically resolve deterministically is when multiple users concurrently update the same property of the same object.",
"vote": "0-3",
"source": "https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/"
}
],
"sources": [
{
"url": "https://blog.alignedlayer.com/the-year-of-zkvm-real-time-proving-milestones-present-and-future/",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/building-jolt/",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://medium.com/@gwrx2005/comparative-analysis-of-sp1-and-risc-zero-zero-knowledge-virtual-machines-4abf806daa70",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://truebit.io/truebit-announces-general-availability-of-verify-platform-the-verification-layer-for-tokenized-assets/",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "Verifiable computation / zkVM state of the art (technical+benchmarks)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07291",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.chakra.dev/research/the-third-epoch-of-ai-decentralizing-the-training-stack",
"quality": "unreliable",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 0
},
{
"url": "https://medium.com/@0xjacobzhao/the-holy-grail-of-crypto-ai-frontier-exploration-on-decentralized-training-88584f6422a6",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.reflexivityresearch.com/free-reports/overview-of-decentralized-compute",
"quality": "secondary",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://research.zengenlabs.com/p/can-decentralized-compute-solve-ais",
"quality": "secondary",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.primeintellect.ai/blog/intellect-2-release",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Decentralized GPU/AI compute markets — real vs hype (practitioner/skeptical)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://github.com/bacalhau-project/bacalhau",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://blog.ipfs.tech/2022-12-13-bacalhau-beta-v1/",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://medium.com/iex-ec/iexec-end-to-end-sgx-solution-fee1e63297b2",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://www.tweag.io/blog/2021-12-02-nix-cas-4/",
"quality": "secondary",
"angle": "P2P compute grids & content-addressed compute-over-data (systems mechanics)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~teutsch/papers/truebit.pdf",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~canetti/CRR11.pdf",
"quality": "unreliable",
"angle": "Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation",
"claimCount": 0
},
{
"url": "https://docs.arbitrum.io/how-arbitrum-works/interactive-fraud-proofs",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.alchemy.com/overviews/validity-proof-vs-fraud-proof",
"quality": "secondary",
"angle": "Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://medium.com/ternoa/sgx-proofs-alternative-proof-system-for-ethereum-l2s-31682c0e5b93",
"quality": "blog",
"angle": "Trustless verification trust models — TEEs, optimistic fraud proofs, refereed delegation",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://github.com/holepunchto/autobase/blob/main/DESIGN.md",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://github.com/holepunchto/autobase/blob/main/README.md",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.02618",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://martin.kleppmann.com/papers/local-first.pdf",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.00583",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Deterministic computation over append-only logs / local-first foundations (primary sources)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2699436",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers)",
"claimCount": 4
},
{
"url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_computing",
"quality": "secondary",
"angle": "Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://www.di.ens.fr/~nitulesc/files/Survey-SNARKs.pdf",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers)",
"claimCount": 5
},
{
"url": "https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/535.pdf",
"quality": "primary",
"angle": "Academic foundations: interactive proofs, MPC, FHE, BFT (key papers)",
"claimCount": 5
}
],
"stats": {
"angles": 6,
"sourcesFetched": 29,
"claimsExtracted": 128,
"claimsVerified": 25,
"confirmed": 22,
"killed": 3,
"afterSynthesis": 7,
"urlDupes": 0,
"budgetDropped": 7,
"agentCalls": 112
}
}
}