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#
SilverScript authoring is a convenience layer for writing covenant scripts, not a replacement for protocol review. This page sits in SilverScript, vProgs, And Based Apps. 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 distinguishes tooling convenience from protocol behavior. SilverScript can author or lower scripts, vProgs can organize based-app execution, and settlement/indexer responsibilities remain part of the application design.
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 DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-TUTORIAL. 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 SilverScript Authoring, the model is built around these anchors: contracts, pragmas, fields, constants, and entrypoints shape source code; UTXO-native design remains visible; bounded logic and types need tooling docs; generated artifacts must be reviewed; tooling maturity needs experimental/readiness caveats rather than protocol-current wording. 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. contracts, pragmas, fields, constants, and entrypoints shape source code. SilverScript pages help readers author and inspect scripts while preserving the protocol boundary. A compiler or macro can generate useful script structure, but generated output still has to be reviewed against txscript, covenant context, pricing, signing, and negative tests.
2. UTXO-native design remains visible. SilverScript pages help readers author and inspect scripts while preserving the protocol boundary. A compiler or macro can generate useful script structure, but generated output still has to be reviewed against txscript, covenant context, pricing, signing, and negative tests.
3. bounded logic and types need tooling docs. SilverScript pages help readers author and inspect scripts while preserving the protocol boundary. A compiler or macro can generate useful script structure, but generated output still has to be reviewed against txscript, covenant context, pricing, signing, and negative tests.
4. generated artifacts must be reviewed. SilverScript pages help readers author and inspect scripts while preserving the protocol boundary. A compiler or macro can generate useful script structure, but generated output still has to be reviewed against txscript, covenant context, pricing, signing, and negative tests.
5. tooling maturity needs experimental/readiness caveats rather than protocol-current wording. 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.
This mechanism section separates authoring tools, runtime organization, proof workflow, indexer replay, and L1 settlement. Tooling convenience does not become protocol behavior without upstream source support.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check contracts, pragmas, fields, constants, and entrypoints shape source code. | Read DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README; label tooling/runtime behavior separately from L1 settlement or protocol enforcement. |
| 2 | Check UTXO-native design remains visible. | Read DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README; label tooling/runtime behavior separately from L1 settlement or protocol enforcement. |
| 3 | Check bounded logic and types need tooling docs. | Read DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README; label tooling/runtime behavior separately from L1 settlement or protocol enforcement. |
| 4 | Check generated artifacts must be reviewed. | Read DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README; label tooling/runtime behavior separately from L1 settlement or protocol enforcement. |
| 5 | Check tooling maturity needs experimental/readiness caveats rather than protocol-current wording. | Read DOC-TOCCATA-SILVERSCRIPT, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-REPO, TOOL-SILVERSCRIPT-README; label tooling/runtime behavior separately from L1 settlement or protocol enforcement. |
When using this page for tooling or based-app work, identify which layer authors scripts, observes ordering, computes state, produces proof material, submits settlement, and recovers after restart. Tool output and runtime architecture need L1 source or settlement evidence before they become protocol claims.
Related Pages#
- silverscript-vprogs-based-apps
- silverscript-compiler-and-lowering