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#
Rusty Kaspa is the primary current implementation authority, but readers need a map before treating the repository as a flat list of files. 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 RK-REPO, KIPS-REPO, RK-TESTS. 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 Rusty Kaspa Consensus Map, the model is built around these anchors: source folders answer different classes of questions; consensus, mining, protocol, RPC, indexes, wallet, database, and tests must be separated; KIPs explain design and status history; tests provide evidence paths; docs and wiki prose remain orientation unless source-backed. 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. source folders answer different classes of questions. 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.
2. consensus, mining, protocol, RPC, indexes, wallet, database, and tests must be separated. Developer integration pages explain an interface by naming the source object behind it. API, RPC, wRPC, SDK, wallet, and indexer surfaces are useful only when they preserve the fields and evidence that the protocol layer actually defines. Accepted-state evidence, replay behavior, schema choices, and endpoint disagreement must be checked separately.
3. KIPs explain design and status history. Historical pages preserve sequence and context with dates and status labels. They explain why an event still matters, then route current behavior to source-backed pages. Old project status, old network behavior, and early community context must not be rewritten as live operational guidance.
4. tests provide evidence paths. 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.
5. docs and wiki prose remain orientation unless source-backed. 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 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 source folders answer different classes of questions. | Read RK-REPO, RK-TESTS; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 2 | Check consensus, mining, protocol, RPC, indexes, wallet, database, and tests must be separated. | Read RK-REPO, RK-TESTS; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 3 | Check KIPs explain design and status history. | Read RK-REPO, RK-TESTS; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 4 | Check tests provide evidence paths. | Read RK-REPO, RK-TESTS; identify the exact Rusty Kaspa module, test, KIP, or release that owns this behavior. |
| 5 | Check docs and wiki prose remain orientation unless source-backed. | Read RK-REPO, RK-TESTS; 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#
- core-protocol-source-path
- header-body-virtual-pipeline