In brief
Transaction evidence moves through layers: wallet intent, node or mempool response, block inclusion, virtual processing, and accepted UTXO effects.
What this page explains#
RPC and indexer shapes expose transaction data to tools, but they do not replace consensus source review. This page sits in Transactions, UTXO, Fees, And Mempool. 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 follows a transaction from ownership model to structure, signing, validation, mempool admission, template selection, and accepted-state evidence. The main danger it prevents is collapsing all transaction states into one word.
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-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO, RK-WRPC, RK-INDEXES. 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 RPC, UTXO Index, And Explorer Boundaries, the model is built around these anchors: RPC models have fields that must preserve source meaning; optional RPC models may omit fields and fail conversion when required data is missing; storageMass and deprecated mass aliases require careful wording; UTXO index availability affects query surfaces; explorers and APIs are observations, not protocol authority. 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. RPC models have fields that must preserve source meaning. 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.
2. optional RPC models may omit fields and fail conversion when required data is missing. 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. storageMass and deprecated mass aliases require careful wording. 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.
4. UTXO index availability affects query surfaces. Index and query-surface claims are about what data a node, RPC service, or indexer can expose, not a shortcut around consensus. The guide should say which index must exist, which interface reads it, how restart or replay affects it, and which source path proves the field or evidence is preserved.
5. explorers and APIs are observations, not protocol authority. 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.
This mechanism section follows a transaction through construction, identity, signing, validation, mempool policy, block templates, and accepted evidence. The stage must be named before the claim is reused.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check RPC models have fields that must preserve source meaning. | Use RK-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO; name the stage: built, signed, validated, admitted, templated, mined, or accepted. |
| 2 | Check optional RPC models may omit fields and fail conversion when required data is missing. | Use RK-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO; name the stage: built, signed, validated, admitted, templated, mined, or accepted. |
| 3 | Check storageMass and deprecated mass aliases require careful wording. | Use RK-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO; name the stage: built, signed, validated, admitted, templated, mined, or accepted. |
| 4 | Check UTXO index availability affects query surfaces. | Use RK-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO; name the stage: built, signed, validated, admitted, templated, mined, or accepted. |
| 5 | Check explorers and APIs are observations, not protocol authority. | Use RK-RPC-TX, RK-RPC-OPTIONAL-TX, RK-RPC-PROTO; name the stage: built, signed, validated, admitted, templated, mined, or accepted. |
When using this page for a transaction claim, name the stage precisely: built, signed, validated, admitted to a mempool, included in a template, mined, accepted, or reflected in a UTXO change. Each stage has a different evidence surface and should not be collapsed into a single success word.
Related Pages#
- 10-accepted-transaction-evidence
- transactions-utxo-mempool
- 12-core-contributor-source-path