Carry the residential substrate work into the standard - #8
Merged
NetworkTheoryAppliedResearchInstitute merged 1 commit intoSep 16, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The 2026-09-08 board review raised three physical facts about running substrate on consumer broadband that the document did not address: dynamic addresses behind carrier-grade NAT with acceptable-use policies barring inbound servers, asymmetric and capped uplink, and a host operator who can read the memory of a machine they physically possess. That work was done in the document store and never reached this repository, so the standard has been silent on the residential case while the reference protocol was already built for it. The document gains one paragraph in the Substrate protocol tier: nodes join the market over encrypted overlays and outbound polling, without requiring open inbound ports or a static address. This is the residential case of line 11 rather than a new provision - a substrate that ran only where a provider permits inbound service would carry a chokepoint at every provider, which line 11 forbids. Registered as SUB-no-inbound-requirement, implementation-bound, taking the registry from 25 invariants to 26 and the README counts with it. The seven translations carry the same paragraph and move their source snapshot to 2026-09-08. They do not yet carry the transport fee from #6; the snapshot date says so rather than implying coverage they lack. Bandwidth and confidential execution are not answered by the document. They are argued in P1-004, published here because open question 9 links to it and the link would otherwise dangle - the same reason the concept triage and prior instruments were published in #1. The paper analyzes and never governs; its candidate SUB-redundant-execution is argued, not bound, and reaching the registry is for the board under bylaws 9.16. Open questions gains the residential entry. It lands at 9 by the date order the file has always kept - 2026-09-08 falls between the sybil entry and the transport fee - so the transport fee renumbers to 10. Nothing outside the file's own summary paragraph cited entry 9. Conformance suite: RESULT: all executed checks PASS, exit 0. Signed-off-by: Jodson Graves <info@ntari.org> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
NetworkTheoryAppliedResearchInstitute
deleted the
sync/residential-substrate
branch
September 16, 2026 16:10
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
1 participant
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.
The document store and this repository diverged. Work done on 2026-09-08 — the board's residential-substrate review — never reached the repository, while #6 and #7 landed here on 2026-09-13 and never reached the store. Neither side is an ancestor of the other. This is the merge, taking the repository's transport-fee and CI work as it stands and adding the store's side to it.
The document
One paragraph in the Substrate protocol tier: nodes join the market over encrypted overlays and outbound polling, without requiring open inbound ports or a static address. It is the residential case of line 11, not a new provision — a substrate that ran only where a provider permits inbound service would carry a chokepoint at every provider. Registered as
SUB-no-inbound-requirement, implementation-bound. The registry goes 25 → 26 and the README counts follow.Translations
All seven carry the same paragraph and move their source snapshot to 2026-09-08. They do not carry the transport fee from #6, which was English-only. The snapshot date is what says so; bumping it further would imply coverage they do not have.
The companion paper
P1-004_Substrate-Constraints_v0.1.mdis published here because open question 9 links to it and the link would otherwise dangle — the same reason the concept triage and prior instruments were published in #1. It analyzes and never governs. Its candidateSUB-redundant-executionis argued, not bound; reaching the registry is for the board under bylaws §9.16.Open questions, and the one renumbering
The residential entry lands at 9 because the file has always run in date order and 2026-09-08 falls between the sybil entry (08-31) and the transport fee (09-11). The transport fee therefore renumbers 9 → 10. Nothing outside the file's own summary paragraph cited entry 9 — the only other mention is #6's commit body, which is history rather than a live reference.
Verification
python jfa-conformance-suite.py→RESULT: all executed checks PASS, exit 0.🤖 Generated with Claude Code