Proof Lab
StartEcosystem
Explore (579)Live Systems (52)Pricing
Log InGet API Key✓ Verify It Yourself
H33-74 / Multi-Anchor

One Receipt. Multiple Chains.

Related · tier-1 reading. For what a portable artifact actually is, see Portable Artifact.

The same H33-74 receipt can be anchored to one chain, five chains, or fifty. The receipt does not change. Only the set of independent notarizations grows.

Most cross-chain attestation systems force you to pick one chain and live with the consequences. Throughput and finality come from that chain. Security guarantees come from that chain. If the chain has a problem, your attestations have a problem.

H33-74 removes that single point of failure by anchoring independently on as many chains as you want.

Definition. H33-74 is the portable 74-byte post-quantum proof primitive — a 32-byte on-chain commitment plus a 42-byte off-chain receipt, signed under three independent NIST families (ML-DSA, FALCON, SLH-DSA). The proof and its verification come from that cryptography. Each blockchain is one interchangeable anchoring substrate for the commitment — never the source of the proof or the trust.
The receipt is the proof. The anchors are independent notarizations. Adding an anchor on a new chain does not change the receipt. It adds another verifiable record that the receipt existed by no later than the new chain's block timestamp. Anchors do not replace each other; they accumulate.

How multi-chain anchoring works

An H33-74 receipt is a 74-byte object signed under three post-quantum signature families. Once produced, the receipt has a fixed cryptographic identity.

An anchor is a chain transaction that commits to the receipt's identity (directly or via a batched commitment over many receipts). Multiple chains can each hold their own anchor. Each anchor is independently verifiable.

Concretely: a receipt anchored on Bitcoin and Ethereum has two completely independent notarizations. Either anchor alone is sufficient to prove the receipt existed. Both together provide redundancy.

What this enables

Redundancy

If one chain has a problem (a long reorg, a chain split, an extended outage, eventual deprecation), other anchors continue working. The receipt's notarization survives any single chain's failure.

Audience-appropriate verification

Different counterparties may prefer different chains. A US institutional auditor may want Bitcoin notarization. A European regulator may want Ethereum. A Solana-native counterparty may want Solana. The same receipt can carry all three anchors so each audience verifies on the chain it knows.

Geopolitical and regulatory portability

If a chain becomes legally restricted in one jurisdiction, the receipt's other anchors remain valid in jurisdictions where that restriction does not apply. The proof is not held hostage to any single chain's regulatory status.

Cost-tier anchoring

Cheap chains for routine receipts, expensive but maximally-trusted chains for high-value receipts, with no architectural change. Anchoring strategy can vary by receipt category without affecting how receipts are produced.

This is not multi-chain in the buzzword sense

Multi-chain bridges
Move the same asset between chains. The asset is on one chain at a time. Bridge dependencies define the failure surface.
Cross-chain messaging
Move information between chains. Requires trust in messaging layer. Same single point of failure shifted to the messaging layer.
H33-74 multi-anchor
Same proof exists in all chains' notarization records. No asset moves. No messaging required. Each anchor is independent. No bridge, no messenger.
Multi-anchor receipts are how cryptographic evidence survives any single chain's failure. No other attestation primitive offers this structurally, because no other primitive treats the chain as optional.

The proof never changes

This is the operational fact that matters most. Adding a new anchor does not modify the receipt. Adding the tenth anchor does not break the first. Removing the third anchor (if you stop notarizing on that chain) does not invalidate the others.

The 74-byte object is the same in every notarization record. Each chain holds a pointer to it, or a commitment that includes it. The receipt itself is immutable from the moment it is produced.

What differs between blockchains are their operational and integration characteristics — throughput, finality, fee, jurisdiction. The H33-74 primitive and its cryptographic properties remain unchanged. Migrating from one blockchain to another changes the anchoring substrate and deployment environment. It does not change the H33-74 primitive, the cryptographic evidence, or the verification model.

What H33-74 does not do

H33-74 produces and anchors the portable proof primitive. It does not monitor systems for control drift (that is HATS), it does not render the pass/fail verdict on an attestation (an independent verifier does — see Verification), and it does not govern agents or preserve decision authority (that is Agent-008). Multi-anchoring is a property of the primitive, not a separate product.

Frequently asked

Does anchoring on a chain change the proof?
No. The proof is the signed 74-byte receipt. Each anchor records its commitment on a chain as independent notarization; adding a tenth anchor does not modify the receipt or break the first.
Is the trust from the chain or from H33-74?
From H33-74. Trust rests on the three post-quantum signatures and an independent, open verifier — not on any chain an anchor lives on. A chain provides an anchoring medium, never the proof.
Can I move a receipt to another chain?
Yes. Anchor the same unchanged receipt on any additional chain at any time. Migrating chains changes the anchoring substrate, not the H33-74 primitive, the cryptographic evidence, or the verification model.
How many chains can one receipt anchor to?
Any number — one, five, or fifty. The receipt is unchanged and each anchor is independent. Either anchor alone proves the receipt existed; together they provide redundancy.

See the architectural consequence

Multi-chain anchoring is what turns the chain into infrastructure rather than architecture.

The Chain Is Infrastructure Why Chain Migration Shouldn't Exist

Related