Disallowed false statements

Record

Every field of the source record, in file order.

Statementsstatements

• –"QMint proves Wiesner money is secure with (3/4)^n." False framing. (3/4)^n is Molina–Vidick–Watrous's theorem (P01 Thm 1), and it holds only for the simple 1→2 counterfeiting game W1 with an exact verifier and no verifier queries.
• –"The (3/4)^n bound applies to the noisy/threshold note (W2) or to S-money." False. W2 has no closed form in the sources read. S1 uses (1/2+1/(2√2))^N (P03 Lemma 1), a different game and value.
• –"(3/4+√2/8)^n and (1/2+1/(2√2))^N are the same classical-verification bound." False. They come from different games (P01 W1_CV vs P03 S1), with bases 0.9268 and 0.8536.
• –"QMint is the first to demonstrate a quantum transaction-time advantage / first experimental quantum token / first quantum payment." False. See P05, P03, P04, P14, P17.
• –"QMint is the first to compute quantum-token security from measured device parameters with confidence intervals." False. See P03 (device-parameter bounds) and P05 (7σ propagation).
• –"The 2023 Vienna experiment demonstrated offline/instant local validation like S-money." False. P04's TTP verifies online. P04 is a different protocol family (D1).
• –"The Schiansky et al. analysis code is CC BY and can be copied into QMint." False/unsafe. The code archive ships an AGPL-3.0 licence file that conflicts with the CC BY metadata, and it contains no security-analysis code anyway.
• –"The 21 Aug 2023 correction changed the security numbers." False. It replaced one Discussion sentence about growing the key C. No numbers changed (CORRECTIONS.md).
• –"QMoney / QMint implements public-key quantum cash." False. QMoney is private-key, quorum-verified, verify-and-remint (audited commit 017502e), and QMint's protocols are private-key or relativistic.
• –"A Monte Carlo attack success rate or an SCS/CVXPY objective value is a security proof." False. It's a lower bound on worst-case attack success, or a numerical value without residual accounting.
• –"Kent et al. 2022's experiment achieved guaranteed unforgeability." False. The authors state that their experimental parameters require improvement (β_PB, β_PS about 10–16× smaller) to guarantee it.