Solution: LP-0002 — Private M-of-N Multisig (resubmission of #133) - #143
Open
jeefxM wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Solution: LP-0002 — Private M-of-N Multisig (resubmission of #133)#143jeefxM wants to merge 4 commits into
jeefxM wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Addresses the review of logos-co#97: the demo entrypoint now really runs at RISC0_DEV_MODE=0 (verified green from a fresh clone with real STARKs), CI is green on the default branch, and the whole solution is ported to LEZ v0.2.4 with a fresh chain-verified ledger plus committed raw JSON-RPC captures so the evidence survives the next testnet wipe.
…ble repo URL, licence The bot reported 'Checking repo: logos-co/lambda-prize', i.e. it never extracted our repository link, so every 'missing in linked repo' error cascaded from that: the Repo line was inline code rather than a URL. Also renamed two headings to the template's exact wording (## Repository, ## Success Criteria Checklist) and added the licence (MIT, inherited from the upstream LEZ fork) plus explicit pointers to demo.sh, the SPEL IDL and basecamp/module.json.
The validator pipes the solution file into grep -qF per required section. grep -q exits at the first match and closes the pipe, so on a large file the feeding echo dies with SIGPIPE and the check misreads as 'section missing' -- visible in the job log as 'line 158: echo: write error: Broken pipe', and it hit exactly the three earliest sections (Summary/Repository/Approach at lines 37/80/141) while the later ones passed. The 50 KB file was also simply too long for a submission entry; passing submissions are 18-27 KB. This keeps Summary, Repository, a condensed Approach (with why-Logos and the alternatives//what-failed narrative), the success-criteria checklist, the FURPS assessment and Terms, and points at docs/LP-0002-solution.md in the linked repo for the full technical write-up. Verified against the validator's exact checks locally before pushing.
… its member set Execute takes nothing from the caller: threshold, recipient and amount are frozen at CreateProposal and the treasury is derived from the frozen member root. Ten release-gate tests, four rejected executes on-chain, fresh chain-verified 2-of-3 ledger on the current testnet generation, real-STARK demo re-verified, contribution dual-licensed MIT + Apache-2.0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
✅ Validation passedA reviewer will assess against the prize criteria. Automated check. See solution template and TERMS. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resubmission of #133 (closed on review by @weboko on 2026-09-07) — opened as a new PR only because GitHub refuses to reopen #133 (HTTP 422 on both the web and REST paths); the fork branch behind #133 is left untouched as the record of what was reviewed.
What the review found, and what changed. #133's
execute()took the threshold from the caller, never bound the supplied recipient to the proposal, transferred the whole treasury, had no test, and the checklist claimed enforcement anyway. In this revision:CreateProposalfreezesthreshold,recipientandamountinto the ProposalState header (msig_core::ProposalHeader, 124 bytes);Execute { seed }reads them back and releases exactly the frozen amount to the frozen recipient, once (executedflag).treasury_seed(member_root) = SHA256(TREASURY_DOMAIN || member_root)) andExecuteasserts the supplied seed equals it. This closes a second gap found while re-auditing:CreateProposalis permissionless and takesmember_rootfrom the caller, so with a program-wide treasury an outsider could have frozen a member set they control and drained the group. Disclosed in Security assumptions and Known limitations.msig_execute_*state tests pin every gate (below threshold, wrong recipient, wrong treasury seed, PDA mismatch, foreign-owned proposal, foreign member set in three shapes, insufficient treasury, second execution, exact-amount release) plus a header-layout test; 24 msig tests green.Executetransactions against a funded treasury and fail unless the chain drops each one.evidence/; three of the four rejected executes returngetTransaction → null, the fourth is evidenced by a timestamped state snapshot because it shares its hash with the later release (anExecutehas no nonce)../demo.shre-verified green atRISC0_DEV_MODE=0from a fresh checkout of this revision (trace committed).LICENSE-APACHE,NOTICE), as the terms require.Repo: https://github.com/jeefxM/lp-0002-private-multisig @
da98a17d5· CI green onmain: https://github.com/jeefxM/lp-0002-private-multisig/actions/runs/34274880779 · Program id3fNuZskqxs6NZUY4YoenCagQspckdsnjLQi1PUmh2nKa.Previous rounds: #91 (2026-06), #97 (2026-06, v0.2.0-rc5), #133 (2026-08, v0.2.4). This is the same submission continued, not a new entry.