Parano1d ① Proof-native Layer 1 ordered by PoW

[ocean1223]

Community Discord (Unofficial) Notify(https://discord.com/invite/HuFwCvEkH8):

📢 **SafeTrade.com list NOID now**

SafeTrade.com, a cryptocurrency exchange familiar to many PoW mining communities, has completed the Parano1d integration and opened NOID/USDT trading:

https://safetrade.com/exchange/NOID-USDT

This is a listing many community members have been looking forward to. A big thank-you to @safetrade (I Will not msg 1st) and the entire SafeTrade team for taking an interest in Parano1d and making this market available to the community.Community Discord (Unofficial) Notify(https://discord.com/invite/HuFwCvEkH8):

📢 **https://noid.innovlab.cc/ pool setting 0% fee now for 2 weeks**

please visit the pool website for more infomation: https://noid.innovlab.cc/

[Tongpu]

Community Discord (Unofficial) Notify(https://discord.gg/WeBqbzYX)

Invite link expired

[ocean1223]

Community Discord (Unofficial) Notify(https://discord.gg/WeBqbzYX)

Invite link expired

https://discord.gg/HuFwCvEkH8
 thanks ,  updated.

[alt_x]

Look at the practical cost of deliberately pushing the network toward a halving by filling the State with UTXOs.

Using the simplified model discussed above:

 1 theoretical attack ≈ 123,731.968 NOID in fees
 At $0.008/NOID ≈ $989.86
 4 attacks ≈ 494,927.872 NOID
Total ≈ $3,959.42

If each attack successfully triggered one halving, the 50 NOID block reward would become:
50 → 25 → 12.5 → 6.25 → 3.125 NOID/block
This raises what I think is the key design question:
Is the halving mechanism economically secure, or does it create an attack surface where someone can effectively “buy” a reduction in block rewards at relatively low cost?

The attack cost is mainly the transaction fees.
In this model, the fees are not paid to miners. They are used to increase UTXO State and push the network toward a halving.
So the key question is: if mining pools work together, can they reuse the fee value that would normally go to miners to trigger a halving?
The real cost of the attack would be much lower than the fee amount, because mining pools could recycle the fee value.
Pool could fill every block with transactions designed to increase UTXO State, with the goal of reaching the halving threshold as quickly as possible.
This means almost no new outside money would be needed, making repeated halvings very cheap.
This createas an attack surface..

Dev, I’ll accept the 10,000 bug bounty now.

If I’m wrong, please show me what prevents a mining pool from exploiting this.

[minerminer3456]

yes. that interesting point, lest wait the devs response

[Tongpu]

Look at the practical cost of deliberately pushing the network toward a halving by filling the State with UTXOs.

Using the simplified model discussed above:

 1 theoretical attack ≈ 123,731.968 NOID in fees
 At $0.008/NOID ≈ $989.86
 4 attacks ≈ 494,927.872 NOID
Total ≈ $3,959.42

If each attack successfully triggered one halving, the 50 NOID block reward would become:
50 → 25 → 12.5 → 6.25 → 3.125 NOID/block
This raises what I think is the key design question:
Is the halving mechanism economically secure, or does it create an attack surface where someone can effectively “buy” a reduction in block rewards at relatively low cost?

The attack cost is mainly the transaction fees.
In this model, the fees are not paid to miners. They are used to increase UTXO State and push the network toward a halving.
So the key question is: if mining pools work together, can they reuse the fee value that would normally go to miners to trigger a halving?
The real cost of the attack would be much lower than the fee amount, because mining pools could recycle the fee value.
This means almost no new outside money would be needed, making repeated halvings very cheap.
This createas an attack surface..

Buy a paid AI subscription already. The free version apparently stopped reading at log_slots 24.

After every expansion, state capacity doubles, so each successive halving requires far more live UTXOs than the previous one. You also ignored the actual work involved. For a start, you would have to generate a valid proof in your wallet for every one of those millions of transactions. The state growth fee doubles once occupancy reaches 50 percent and doubles again at 75 percent. That part of the fee is burned by consensus. Mining pools cannot recycle it through coinbase. The UTXOs also have to remain live until 75 percent occupancy has persisted through the finalized expansion window.

Good luck with your “attack” champ. Lower block rewards + more NOID burned = my NOID becomes more valuable.

[alt_x]

Look at the practical cost of deliberately pushing the network toward a halving by filling the State with UTXOs.

Using the simplified model discussed above:

This createas an attack surface..

Buy a paid AI



Good luck with your “attack” champ. Lower block rewards + more NOID burned = my NOID becomes more valuable.

Doubling UTXO capacity doesn’t change the core point in this model.

The State-growth fees are not burned — they are paid to miners.-- State-growth fee: 2,500 uNOID is burned

[Tongpu]

Doubling UTXO capacity doesn’t change the core point in this model.

Sooner or later the state will grow. That is part of the protocol design. If you can fill every block for months, generate more than 100 million wallet proofs and burn the required NOID, feel free to speed it up by spamming the state. That is paid-for state growth, not the cheap attack you described. All NOID holders will thank you for your work

The State-growth fees are not burned — they are paid to miners.

https://github.com/ignotusnemo/parano1d/blob/main/noid_chain/src/consensus/fees.rs#L141-L158

[alt_x]

Doubling UTXO capacity doesn’t change the core point in this model.

Sooner or later the state will grow. That is part of the protocol design. If you can fill every block for months, generate more than 100 million wallet proofs and burn the required NOID, feel free to speed it up by spamming the state. That is paid-for state growth, not the cheap attack you described. All NOID holders will thank you for your work

The State-growth fees are not burned — they are paid to miners.-- State-growth fee: 2,500 uNOID is burned

https://github.com/ignotusnemo/parano1d/blob/main/noid_chain/src/consensus/fees.rs#L141-L158

From the miner's perspective, the attacker keeps the non-burned transaction fees.
Only the State-growth fee is burned.

Non-burned fee: 5800 uNOID = 0.0058 NOID
State-growth fee burned: 2500 uNOID = 0.0025 NOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

First halving:
0% -> 50%
State-growth fee: 2500 uNOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

50% -> 75%
State-growth fee: 5000 uNOID
Total fee: 10800 uNOID = 0.0108 NOID per transaction

Transactions required:
8,388,608 + 4,194,304 = 12,582,912 transactions

Total fees paid:
8,388,608 x 0.0083 = 69,625.4464 NOID
4,194,304 x 0.0108 = 45,298.4832 NOID
Total fees paid = 114,923.9296 NOID

Non-burned fees returned to miner = 12,582,912 x 0.0058 = 72,980.8896 NOID
State-growth fees burned = 8,388,608 x 0.0025 + 4,194,304 x 0.005 = 41,943.04 NOID

So if the attacker also mines the transactions, the miner's direct fee cost is only 41,943.04 NOID.
41,943.04 NOID = $335.54 at $0.008 per NOID.

The block reward then drops:
50 -> 25 NOID per block.

The attack requires about 49,345 blocks, assuming 255 net-new UTXO transactions per block.
At 20 seconds per block, that is about 11.42 days of cumulative theoretical block time.
This does not account for the actual time needed to produce the blocks,
which depends on the attacker's hash rate and probability of finding 100% of the blocks.

For comparison, using a 45 NOID block reward:
Average State-growth cost per block: 41,943.04 / 49,345 = about 0.85 NOID

Block reward: 45 NOID - 0.85 NOID fee per block = 44.15 NOID per block
Total reward: 49,345 blocks x 44.15 NOID = 2,178,581.75 NOID
Value at $0.008 per NOID: 2,178,581.75 x $0.008 = $17,428.65

Actual State-growth cost: 41,943.04 NOID = $335.54

[ocean1223]

📢NOID Community Mining Update(https://discord.com/invite/HuFwCvEkH8)

Current NOID mining performance across available software appears to be approaching a practical plateau. By reducing the INVminer developer fee, we hope miners can spend less time switching between different miners and pools and devote more time to participating in and supporting the community.

Please visit GitHub Releases for the latest version and download (1% Miner Fee):

https://github.com/getrigeos/INVminer-Release/releases/latest

The Innovlab community pool will continue offering 0% pool fees for approximately 12 more days:

https://noid.innovlab.cc/

Please help more people discover and understand promising projects like Parano1d. Directing more hashrate toward innovative projects is exactly what the name Innovlab (Innovation + Laboratory) represents.

[ocminer]

I've added a Pool as well:

https://noid.suprnova.cc/

- and a free miner as well:

https://github.com/ocminer/suprminer/releases .

Pool supports Fl4shminer as well so you can test both, performance should be good on suprminer as well. Fee on the pool is 1% and suprminer takes 0%.

Suprminer supports all other stratum pools (like innovlab) as well. Let me know if you have any issues, blocks are found well, payouts are working - everything should be fine.

[Tongpu]

I've added a Pool as well:

https://noid.suprnova.cc/

- and a free miner as well:

https://github.com/ocminer/suprminer/releases .

Pool supports Fl4shminer as well so you can test both, performance should be good on suprminer as well. Fee on the pool is 1% and suprminer takes 0%.

Suprminer supports all other stratum pools (like innovlab) as well. Let me know if you have any issues, blocks are found well, payouts are working - everything should be fine.

Nice to see Suprnova here. One of the true old-school names in PoW mining, still building after all these years. Respect, ocminer.

[IgnotusNemo]

Doubling UTXO capacity doesn’t change the core point in this model.

Sooner or later the state will grow. That is part of the protocol design. If you can fill every block for months, generate more than 100 million wallet proofs and burn the required NOID, feel free to speed it up by spamming the state. That is paid-for state growth, not the cheap attack you described. All NOID holders will thank you for your work

The State-growth fees are not burned — they are paid to miners.-- State-growth fee: 2,500 uNOID is burned

https://github.com/ignotusnemo/parano1d/blob/main/noid_chain/src/consensus/fees.rs#L141-L158

From the miner's perspective, the attacker keeps the non-burned transaction fees.
Only the State-growth fee is burned.

Non-burned fee: 5800 uNOID = 0.0058 NOID
State-growth fee burned: 2500 uNOID = 0.0025 NOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

First halving:
0% -> 50%
State-growth fee: 2500 uNOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

50% -> 75%
State-growth fee: 5000 uNOID
Total fee: 10800 uNOID = 0.0108 NOID per transaction

Transactions required:
8,388,608 + 4,194,304 = 12,582,912 transactions

Total fees paid:
8,388,608 x 0.0083 = 69,625.4464 NOID
4,194,304 x 0.0108 = 45,298.4832 NOID
Total fees paid = 114,923.9296 NOID

Non-burned fees returned to miner = 12,582,912 x 0.0058 = 72,980.8896 NOID
State-growth fees burned = 8,388,608 x 0.0025 + 4,194,304 x 0.005 = 41,943.04 NOID

So if the attacker also mines the transactions, the miner's direct fee cost is only 41,943.04 NOID.
41,943.04 NOID = $335.54 at $0.008 per NOID.

The block reward then drops:
50 -> 25 NOID per block.

The attack requires about 49,345 blocks, assuming 255 net-new UTXO transactions per block.
At 20 seconds per block, that is about 11.42 days of cumulative theoretical block time.
This does not account for the actual time needed to produce the blocks,
which depends on the attacker's hash rate and probability of finding 100% of the blocks.

For comparison, using a 45 NOID block reward:
Average State-growth cost per block: 41,943.04 / 49,345 = about 0.85 NOID

Block reward: 45 NOID - 0.85 NOID fee per block = 44.15 NOID per block
Total reward: 49,345 blocks x 44.15 NOID = 2,178,581.75 NOID
Value at $0.008 per NOID: 2,178,581.75 x $0.008 = $17,428.65

Actual State-growth cost: 41,943.04 NOID = $335.54

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

[IgnotusNemo]

A real breakthrough in coding theory.

GPT-5 and Codex produced a Lean-verified result beyond the Johnson bound for a concrete Reed-Solomon code. Researchers extracted the idea, generalized it with GPT-5.6 Sol and pushed list decoding nearly to capacity at low rates https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2026/164/

This opens a real path for Parano1d to use fewer FRI queries and produce smaller proofs without reducing security! The next step is to carry the idea into binary extension fields and prove the correlated agreement required by additive folding.

[alt_x]

Doubling UTXO capacity doesn’t change the core point in this model.

Sooner or later the state will grow. That is part of the protocol design. If you can fill every block for months, generate more than 100 million wallet proofs and burn the required NOID, feel free to speed it up by spamming the state. That is paid-for state growth, not the cheap attack you described. All NOID holders will thank you for your work

The State-growth fees are not burned — they are paid to miners.-- State-growth fee: 2,500 uNOID is burned

https://github.com/ignotusnemo/parano1d/blob/main/noid_chain/src/consensus/fees.rs#L141-L158

From the miner's perspective, the attacker keeps the non-burned transaction fees.
Only the State-growth fee is burned.

Non-burned fee: 5800 uNOID = 0.0058 NOID
State-growth fee burned: 2500 uNOID = 0.0025 NOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

First halving:
0% -> 50%
State-growth fee: 2500 uNOID
Total fee: 8300 uNOID = 0.0083 NOID per transaction

50% -> 75%
State-growth fee: 5000 uNOID
Total fee: 10800 uNOID = 0.0108 NOID per transaction

Transactions required:
8,388,608 + 4,194,304 = 12,582,912 transactions

Total fees paid:
8,388,608 x 0.0083 = 69,625.4464 NOID
4,194,304 x 0.0108 = 45,298.4832 NOID
Total fees paid = 114,923.9296 NOID

Non-burned fees returned to miner = 12,582,912 x 0.0058 = 72,980.8896 NOID
State-growth fees burned = 8,388,608 x 0.0025 + 4,194,304 x 0.005 = 41,943.04 NOID

So if the attacker also mines the transactions, the miner's direct fee cost is only 41,943.04 NOID.
41,943.04 NOID = $335.54 at $0.008 per NOID.

The block reward then drops:
50 -> 25 NOID per block.

The attack requires about 49,345 blocks, assuming 255 net-new UTXO transactions per block.
At 20 seconds per block, that is about 11.42 days of cumulative theoretical block time.
This does not account for the actual time needed to produce the blocks,
which depends on the attacker's hash rate and probability of finding 100% of the blocks.

For comparison, using a 45 NOID block reward:
Average State-growth cost per block: 41,943.04 / 49,345 = about 0.85 NOID

Block reward: 45 NOID - 0.85 NOID fee per block = 44.15 NOID per block
Total reward: 49,345 blocks x 44.15 NOID = 2,178,581.75 NOID
Value at $0.008 per NOID: 2,178,581.75 x $0.008 = $17,428.65

Actual State-growth cost: 41,943.04 NOID = $335.54

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

This is updated scheme.
9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID,

Yo just want to hide the truth in rounded numbers.

We can also re calculate all 4 steps but:
This is just step 1 now and it is valid.

Im tired of Ai generated dev posts, Ai seeks all mistakes like fee small mistake, and makes post around it to hide idea.
This coin is 99% AI generated.
Dev answers are 110% AI generated.

[IgnotusNemo]

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

This is updated scheme.
9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID,

Yo just want to hide the truth in rounded numbers.

We can also re calculate all 4 steps but:
This is just step 1 now and it is valid.

Valid for what?

You calculated that if someone pays the protocol price for State growth, the State grows and the issuance tier changes exactly as specified. That is the protocol working, not an attack. You did not find a bug. You kept changing your claim until nothing remained but a description of the protocol.

Please stop posting AI slop in this thread.

[alt_x]

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

This is updated scheme.
9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID,

Yo just want to hide the truth in rounded numbers.

We can also re calculate all 4 steps but:
This is just step 1 now and it is valid.

Valid for what?

You calculated that if someone pays the protocol price for State growth, the State grows and the issuance tier changes exactly as specified. That is the protocol working, not an attack. You did not find a bug. You kept changing your claim until nothing remained but a description of the protocol.

Please stop posting AI slop in this thread.

Now you claim that the possible early growth generated by a free attack by mining pools was actually part of the coin's design?
The launch was an epic fail, and I'm losing all faith in this as a possible investment.

I won't invest in an AI slot coin.

[Tongpu]

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

This is updated scheme.
9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID,

Yo just want to hide the truth in rounded numbers.

We can also re calculate all 4 steps but:
This is just step 1 now and it is valid.

Valid for what?

You calculated that if someone pays the protocol price for State growth, the State grows and the issuance tier changes exactly as specified. That is the protocol working, not an attack. You did not find a bug. You kept changing your claim until nothing remained but a description of the protocol.

Please stop posting AI slop in this thread.

Now you claim that the possible early growth generated by a free attack by mining pools was actually part of the coin's design?
The launch was an epic fail, and I'm losing all faith in this as a possible investment.

I won't invest in an AI slot coin.

You edit your posts faster than I can reply, lol. Stop posting nonsense. You’ve argued yourself into a corner. Disable AI and enable your brain 

[alt_x]

You changed both the argument and the quote.
Your original claim was about four halvings. Now you calculate only one. The preserved quote says “The State-growth fees are not burned.” In your new post, you inserted “State-growth fee 2,500 μNOID is burned” into the text attributed to your earlier post. That is falsifying the record after being corrected.
Your fee math is still wrong. The correct totals are 9,000 and 11,500 μNOID. Normal block subsidy is not profit created by spam.

This is updated scheme.
9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID,

Yo just want to hide the truth in rounded numbers.

We can also re calculate all 4 steps but:
This is just step 1 now and it is valid.

Valid for what?

You calculated that if someone pays the protocol price for State growth, the State grows and the issuance tier changes exactly as specified. That is the protocol working, not an attack. You did not find a bug. You kept changing your claim until nothing remained but a description of the protocol.

Please stop posting AI slop in this thread.

Now you claim that the possible early growth generated by a free attack by mining pools was actually part of the coin's design?
The launch was an epic fail, and I'm losing all faith in this as a possible investment.

I won't invest in an AI slot coin.

You edit your posts faster than I can reply, lol. Stop posting nonsense. You’ve argued yourself into a corner. Disable AI and enable your brain  

Devs puppet alias telling us to hide the truth.
99 % AI code, 125 Ai genrated answers from dev and his puppet.

It is just a matter of time when they execute this attack.

Will updated calculation with values,  9,000 and 11,500 μNOID makes no difference to 8,300 and 10,800 μNOID, satisfy your needs?

In the other hand, this coins current code will never beat tx rate needed for real use while limited to 255 pages, another epic fail.

[kinomh]

I’m not a developer, but even I can see that calling everyone a “puppet” and repeating “99% AI code” proves absolutely nothing.

If there is a real attack, publish a reproducible proof of concept and identify the affected code. If the 255-page limit makes real-world use impossible, demonstrate it with proper benchmarks and calculations.

Constantly changing a few numbers while throwing insults around is not technical analysis. Bring evidence, not drama.