Thank you for raising this. That's a fair question.
We agree that for a bearer-file system like QCash, documentation is part of the security model. Users should always be able to verify which rules and security assumptions applied when a cash file was created or accepted.
Our approach is that protocol rules are ultimately defined by the protocol implementation and the consensus rules, while user-facing documentation explains those rules. Going forward, we plan to publish versioned protocol specifications and security documents alongside each protocol release, with immutable Git tags and release artifacts so previous versions remain permanently referenceable.
We are also considering committing hashes of important specification documents on-chain or through another timestamped mechanism, allowing anyone to verify that a document has not been altered after publication.
At the moment, the documentation is maintained in the repository, but we agree that long-term, an authoritative and versioned archive is important. Thank you for highlighting this point.
Each QCash file already carries its protocol version, so software can always interpret it according to the rules of that protocol version. The remaining piece is preserving the human-readable specifications with the same level of permanence.
QCash is an unusual idea, especially because the file itself becomes the bearer asset while the blockchain remains the final authority on whether that value is pending, ready or already spent.
That also makes the project’s public explanations extremely important. Users need to know exactly which security assumptions, maturity rules, deposit conditions and warnings applied at the moment they created or accepted a cash file. If those rules or recommendations change later, simply updating QCASH.md or the website could make the earlier version difficult to verify.
For example, a future dispute could depend on what users were originally told about copied files, first-deposit priority, loss recovery, maturity timing or protocol compatibility. GitHub keeps useful history, but repositories can be reorganized, documentation can be replaced, and official posts elsewhere may be edited or removed.
Where does Paqus preserve an authoritative, timestamped history of its QCash rules, security disclosures and protocol commitments so that users can verify the original wording years later? I would appreciate a link to that record if one is already maintained.
The primary purpose of QCash is to enable private value transfers outside the blockchain. Users are fully responsible for safeguarding their QCash files, much like they are responsible for protecting the private keys or mnemonic phrases of cryptocurrency wallets.
QCash is intentionally designed to resemble physical cash. A QCash file can be copied freely, but the blockchain ledger remains the sole authority. During redemption, the ledger determines whether the file is still redeemable or has already been redeemed. The "first valid deposit" rule is therefore a fundamental protocol rule.
Regarding your question about preserving these rules, that's a valid point. At the moment, the documentation is maintained in the repository. Our long-term goal is to publish versioned protocol specifications and preserve them in a way that provides a permanent, timestamped record, so users can always verify which rules and security assumptions applied to a specific protocol version.
