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#
Covenant ID is lineage evidence, not the whole app rule. 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-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS. 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 Covenant IDs And Lineage, the model is built around these anchors: genesis and continuation contexts differ; ID can track membership across changing P2SH hashes; business rules still live in scripts; indexers can use IDs to recover heads; status review is process guidance and does not replace KIP-0020 plus implementation evidence. 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. genesis and continuation contexts differ. 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. ID can track membership across changing P2SH hashes. 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. business rules still live in scripts. 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. indexers can use IDs to recover heads. 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.
5. status review is process guidance and does not replace KIP-0020 plus implementation evidence. 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 genesis and continuation contexts differ. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 2 | Check ID can track membership across changing P2SH hashes. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 3 | Check business rules still live in scripts. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 4 | Check indexers can use IDs to recover heads. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS; verify spent-output context, successor-output rule, covenant ID, and negative cases separately. |
| 5 | Check status review is process guidance and does not replace KIP-0020 plus implementation evidence. | Read KIP-0020, RK-COVENANT-ID, RK-COVENANTS; 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#
- successor-output-validation
- covenants
- auth-groups-vs-covenant-groups