In brief
This page is source-sensitive. Treat application, covenant, proof, and readiness wording as bounded by the listed public sources and Open Questions.
What this page explains#
Auth groups and covenant groups answer different questions and must not be collapsed. This page sits in Covenants. 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 keeps the UTXO model visible while explaining stateful patterns. A covenant does not mutate account storage in place; it validates a spend and the successor output that carries the next state.
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 KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES, KIP-0010, 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 Auth Groups Vs Covenant Groups, the model is built around these anchors: auth-related checks tie outputs to authorizing inputs; covenant-group checks relate inputs and outputs sharing covenant identity; opcode names need source-backed interpretation; mixed group rules create subtle validation bugs; Source Notes must separate KIP-0020, covenant implementation, and opcode support for each group. 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. auth-related checks tie outputs to authorizing inputs. Covenant mechanics stay anchored in UTXOs, but the page's main question is state continuity. The current output is spent, the script inspects transaction context, and the successor output must carry the allowed next state. Covenant IDs, authorization groups, script context, and indexer head tracking are helper surfaces; they do not replace the actual successor validation rule.
2. covenant-group checks relate inputs and outputs sharing covenant identity. Covenant mechanics stay anchored in UTXOs, but the page's main question is state continuity. The current output is spent, the script inspects transaction context, and the successor output must carry the allowed next state. Covenant IDs, authorization groups, script context, and indexer head tracking are helper surfaces; they do not replace the actual successor validation rule.
3. opcode names need source-backed interpretation. Covenant mechanics stay anchored in UTXOs, but the page's main question is state continuity. The current output is spent, the script inspects transaction context, and the successor output must carry the allowed next state. Covenant IDs, authorization groups, script context, and indexer head tracking are helper surfaces; they do not replace the actual successor validation rule.
4. mixed group rules create subtle validation bugs. Covenant mechanics stay anchored in UTXOs, but the page's main question is state continuity. The current output is spent, the script inspects transaction context, and the successor output must carry the allowed next state. Covenant IDs, authorization groups, script context, and indexer head tracking are helper surfaces; they do not replace the actual successor validation rule.
5. Source Notes must separate KIP-0020, covenant implementation, and opcode support for each group. Covenant mechanics stay anchored in UTXOs, but the page's main question is state continuity. The current output is spent, the script inspects transaction context, and the successor output must carry the allowed next state. Covenant IDs, authorization groups, script context, and indexer head tracking are helper surfaces; they do not replace the actual successor validation rule.
This mechanism section keeps the covenant rule, the spent output, the successor output, covenant ID, authorization context, and indexer responsibility separate. Local case studies stay local experience unless rewritten against public sources.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check auth-related checks tie outputs to authorizing inputs. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 2 | Check covenant-group checks relate inputs and outputs sharing covenant identity. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 3 | Check opcode names need source-backed interpretation. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 4 | Check mixed group rules create subtle validation bugs. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 5 | Check Source Notes must separate KIP-0020, covenant implementation, and opcode support for each group. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANTS, RK-OPCODES; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
When using this page for covenant design, verify the spent output, script context, authorization rule, successor output, state encoding, and negative cases separately. Indexer head tracking and local design notes are supporting evidence, not replacements for the covenant rule.
Related Pages#
- covenant-ids-and-lineage
- covenants
- introspection-opcodes-and-script-context