In brief
Kaspa keeps nearby valid blocks in a blockDAG and uses consensus rules to reason about ordering and accepted effects.
What this page explains#
This question-led page corrects common misreadings: DAG does not mean no ordering, selected parent is not the whole state story, and mempool visibility is not accepted evidence. This page sits in Consensus, GHOSTDAG, And blockDAG. It gives the topic a plain-language handle first, then shows the working idea, the mechanism, the source trail, and any limits that still matter. This category explains how Kaspa reasons about many blocks without pretending the graph itself is enough. The flow moves from graph shape, to GHOSTDAG classification and ordering, to virtual state and accepted transaction evidence.
The writing follows a simple Kaspa documentation pattern: answer the practical question first, then link outward for details. The closest public sources for this page are WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG, RK-VIRTUAL-PIPELINE. Local notes can help choose what to explain, but public-facing references resolve to upstream websites, repositories, papers, release pages, or docs.
How to think about it#
The practical model starts by naming the layer that owns the topic: wallet use, node operation, consensus, transaction validation, Toccata script behavior, tooling, or research. From there, the page shows which public source can support the explanation and where the explanation becomes incomplete.
For Consensus FAQ And Failure Modes, the model is built around these anchors: answer direct questions first; separate graph structure from ordering and state effects; define what an app can safely verify; label paper and proposal claims; link every answer to a deeper mechanism or source page. This model is useful, but it does not encode every constant, branch, error type, or edge case. Those details belong in the source path and the source notes.
How it works#
1. answer direct questions first. Consensus pages separate graph structure, ordering, work signals, and state consequences. A claim in this section is useful only when it says whether the source is describing the DAG shape, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, virtual-state processing, or research background.
2. separate graph structure from ordering and state effects. Consensus pages separate graph structure, ordering, work signals, and state consequences. A claim in this section is useful only when it says whether the source is describing the DAG shape, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, virtual-state processing, or research background.
3. define what an app can safely verify. Consensus pages separate graph structure, ordering, work signals, and state consequences. A claim in this section is useful only when it says whether the source is describing the DAG shape, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, virtual-state processing, or research background.
4. label paper and proposal claims. Consensus pages separate graph structure, ordering, work signals, and state consequences. A claim in this section is useful only when it says whether the source is describing the DAG shape, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, virtual-state processing, or research background.
5. link every answer to a deeper mechanism or source page. Source-review pages are practical maps. They start from one claim, identify the owning subsystem, inspect data structures and serialization, follow validation or execution, check tests and release context, and then write down what remains unresolved. The page is useful only if it says both what a source proves and what it does not prove.
This mechanism section separates graph structure, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, ordering consequences, and virtual-state effects. A diagram or summary can orient the reader, but implementation paths and KIPs carry high-risk claims.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check answer direct questions first. | Read WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG; distinguish graph shape, ordering, selected-parent context, and accepted-state consequences. |
| 2 | Check separate graph structure from ordering and state effects. | Read WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG; distinguish graph shape, ordering, selected-parent context, and accepted-state consequences. |
| 3 | Check define what an app can safely verify. | Read WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG; distinguish graph shape, ordering, selected-parent context, and accepted-state consequences. |
| 4 | Check label paper and proposal claims. | Read WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG; distinguish graph shape, ordering, selected-parent context, and accepted-state consequences. |
| 5 | Check link every answer to a deeper mechanism or source page. | Read WIKI-FAQ, WIKI-KASPA, RK-GHOSTDAG; distinguish graph shape, ordering, selected-parent context, and accepted-state consequences. |
When using this page for consensus explanation, identify whether the claim is about graph shape, GHOSTDAG classification, selected-parent context, virtual-state processing, or transaction consequences. Diagrams are orientation aids; source paths and KIPs carry the high-risk behavior claims.
Related Pages#
- dagknight-research-edge
- consensus-blockdag-ghostdag