grenadeandClaude Opus 5
e3c95d4945
The observer had nothing to say about this chain's central feature, which is
why the distribution table's outflow column could ship reading zero for every
miner and look like evidence.
A transfer inserts a commitment as a note; spending one proves a nullifier,
which the runtime records so it cannot be spent twice. That makes the pool
countable even though its movements are not:
ZkTree::LeafCount 82,691 notes created
Wormhole::UsedNullifiers 47,796 notes spent
outstanding 34,895 unspent — still inside
Outstanding is the headline. It is the part of the chain's activity that has not
moved, and every one of those notes will name a recipient and an amount and not
a sender when it does.
The routes table separates transfers by the extrinsic that produced them,
because a hidden sender means two different things. In block initialisation it
is the chain paying a miner and the "sender" is the runtime; inside
`verify_public_batch` or `verify_private_batch` it is somebody spending a note
and the origin genuinely is not recorded. Collapsing those would make mining
rewards look like anonymous payments — 23,876 of them.
Notes per day come from the `leaf_index` each transfer carries rather than from
`ZkTree::LeafInserted`, which is in `SKIPPED_EVENTS` because it fires every block
and names no account. Same fact, cheaper road.
`SegmentsDenied` and `ExitMintFailed` have never fired. Shown anyway, because a
proof rejection nobody has ever seen is a finding rather than a gap — though it
is a weaker statement than it looks, and the note says so: never refused is not
the same as never attempted.
Closes #18
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>