In brief
KIPs and upgrades are a status map, not an automatic statement of deployed behavior.
What this page explains#
KIPs and upgrades are a status map, not an automatic statement of deployed behavior. This page sits in Core Protocol Source Path. 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 is a code-reading path. It treats source files as evidence with boundaries: a constant proves one kind of thing, a pipeline proves another, and a test proves only the scenario it covers.
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 KIPS-REPO, KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016, KIP-0017. 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 Activation, KIPs, And Release Evidence, the model is built around these anchors: KIP status can be proposed, historical, implemented on a named network, merged, or superseded, and each label needs its own evidence; release notes show network rollout evidence; implementation source closes precise behavior claims; docs may lag source or release state; Open Questions record status conflicts instead of hiding them. 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. KIP status can be proposed, historical, implemented on a named network, merged, or superseded, and each label needs its own evidence. Core protocol source pages explain which subsystem owns the behavior. The reader should come away knowing whether the evidence belongs in params, constants, proof of work, header processing, body processing, virtual processing, DAA, pruning, reachability, storage, or tests.
2. release notes show network rollout evidence. Readiness pages are evidence gates. A testnet result is useful only with network name, date, release or branch, node/wallet/tool versions, and accepted evidence. Release notes and source paths support stronger claims; old testnet observations remain historical unless refreshed.
3. implementation source closes precise behavior claims. 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.
4. docs may lag source or release state. Readiness pages are evidence gates. A testnet result is useful only with network name, date, release or branch, node/wallet/tool versions, and accepted evidence. Release notes and source paths support stronger claims; old testnet observations remain historical unless refreshed.
5. Open Questions record status conflicts instead of hiding them. Core protocol source pages explain which subsystem owns the behavior. The reader should come away knowing whether the evidence belongs in params, constants, proof of work, header processing, body processing, virtual processing, DAA, pruning, reachability, storage, or tests.
This mechanism section is a source checking guide. Each paragraph names the subsystem that owns the claim and keeps constants, params, pipelines, tests, releases, and KIPs in their own evidence lanes.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check KIP status can be proposed, historical, implemented on a named network, merged, or superseded, and each label needs its own evidence. | Read KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 2 | Check release notes show network rollout evidence. | Read KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 3 | Check implementation source closes precise behavior claims. | Read KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 4 | Check docs may lag source or release state. | Read KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 5 | Check Open Questions record status conflicts instead of hiding them. | Read KIP-0001, KIP-0014, KIP-0016; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
When using this page for source review, start with the claim class, then read the owner module, tests, KIP or release context, and any dependent interface. Record what the source proves and what it does not prove before strengthening wiki wording.
Related Pages#
- storage-indexes-and-state-surfaces
- core-protocol-source-path
- source-walkthrough-exercises