01 Purpose and scope
- Review how the security landscape has changed since the October 2025 comparison session, specifically the effect of widely available AI tooling on the cost of attacking a new proof-of-work network.
- Decide whether the existing test programme is sufficient before public launch, or whether it needs to be extended.
- Reassess the launch window in light of the above.
This was a working session with decisions, unlike the October 2025 meeting, which was comparison only. The decisions are recorded in section 06.
02 Launch timeline
The roadmap published at the start of the project described closed testing through Q1 2026 and a public launch window in early 2026. That window has passed without a launch, and the meeting agreed it should not be restated until the additional testing described below has been completed.
- previous
- Public launch window: early 2026
- status
- Under review
- working assumption
- 2027
- date set
- None
The principle that mining endpoints open progressively as stability thresholds are met still applies. The thresholds themselves are being extended to include the new security testing.
03 Security concerns raised
No confirmed vulnerability was presented at the meeting. The concerns are about the changed cost of several attacks: work that previously required scarce skill or time is now substantially cheaper because of AI tooling, and a small proof-of-work network is exposed to that change more than a large one. The following areas were raised for review.
Automated review of novel logic
The Bitcoin Core base is heavily reviewed; the Spearmint additions (per-block retargeting, tiered finality) are not. AI-assisted auditing makes it far cheaper for an adversary to search that new logic for edge cases.
Optimised rental timing
ADR is designed to make brief rented hash rate unprofitable. The concern is planning tools that can model the retarget response and time rentals to the windows where it is weakest.
Social engineering and supply chain
Convincing, targeted approaches to maintainers, AI-generated contributions, and pressure on the release-signing process were all raised as risks to a small named team.
Automated probing of endpoints
Pool, Stratum, and node endpoints will be probed by automated agents from the moment they are public. Defaults and monitoring need to assume that rather than hope otherwise.
04 Additional testing
A new testing programme is under way in response to the concerns above. It extends the adversarial simulation work proposed in October 2025 rather than replacing it. The programme covers:
- Adversarial simulation of ADR and DBF against hash-rate schedules that are planned to exploit the retarget response, not just random volatility.
- Fuzzing and targeted review of the retarget and finality code paths that differ from Bitcoin Core.
- A review of the release process: key custody, signing, reproducible-build verification, and how contributions are accepted.
- Hardening and monitoring of pool and node infrastructure before any endpoint is exposed publicly.
Results will be recorded in the build log as they are produced, including anything that fails, consistent with how the log has been kept so far.
05 What does not change
- The economic policy — 210 million cap, 50 SPMTC initial reward, 30-second target, six-month then annual halvings — is unchanged and remains proposed until genesis.
- The chain identity recorded in the build log (HRPs, ports, magic bytes, genesis texts) is unchanged.
- The pre-launch acquisition model — 8% by ordinary solo mining, block range published — is unchanged.
- The commitment to publish parameters, failures, and fixes before launch is unchanged. This page exists because of it.
06 Decisions recorded
| Item | Decision |
|---|---|
| Launch window | Under review. Not restated until testing completes. Working assumption: 2027. |
| Testing programme | Extended to cover the four areas in section 04. Launch is gated on completion. |
| Economic policy | No change. |
| Chain parameters | No change. |
| Disclosure | Testing results, including failures, to be published in the build log. |
07 Open questions
- Which ADR parameter ranges hold up against planned, rather than random, hash-rate schedules — and does the answer change the values published in the economic policy?
- What confirmation depths should DBF require by value tier once the simulation results are in?
- What level of independent review is appropriate for the consensus additions before launch, and who performs it?
- What are the objective criteria for declaring the testing programme complete?
08 Next steps
- Run the extended adversarial simulations and publish the method and results.
- Complete the release-process review and publish the resulting signing and contribution policy.
- Define the completion criteria for the testing programme and publish them.
- Reconvene to set a launch window once the criteria are met. Until then, the roadmap says 2027 as a working assumption and nothing firmer.