In brief
A Kaspa wallet is software for keys, addresses, signing, and transaction workflow. Network evidence is checked separately from what a wallet screen shows.
What this page explains#
Message-signing support is treated as feature-specific wallet behavior that needs source and KIP evidence before current claims are made. This page sits in Wallets, Nodes, And Mining. 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 operational, so every explanation is tied to an observable workflow. A wallet can build and sign intent, a node can sync and serve state, a miner can work on templates, and none of those observations by themselves replace accepted-network evidence.
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-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE, RK-WALLET, WIKI-CLI-WALLET. 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 Message Signing And KIP-0005, the model is built around these anchors: message signing is not the same as transaction signing; KIP material needs current status checks; wallet core and CLI source support current sign and verify behavior; CLI message signing has address-type limits that must stay visible; unsupported or stale behavior remains needs checking. 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. message signing is not the same as transaction signing. Signing is a commitment boundary. A wallet or SDK can construct intent, but a signature only authorizes the fields covered by the signing algorithm and available UTXO context. The review must confirm that versioned fields, previous outputs, sequences, payloads, gas, covenant data, scripts, values, and hash-type choices are not silently lost before or after signing.
2. KIP material needs current status checks. Signing is a commitment boundary. A wallet or SDK can construct intent, but a signature only authorizes the fields covered by the signing algorithm and available UTXO context. The review must confirm that versioned fields, previous outputs, sequences, payloads, gas, covenant data, scripts, values, and hash-type choices are not silently lost before or after signing.
3. wallet core and CLI source support current sign and verify behavior. Signing is a commitment boundary. A wallet or SDK can construct intent, but a signature only authorizes the fields covered by the signing algorithm and available UTXO context. The review must confirm that versioned fields, previous outputs, sequences, payloads, gas, covenant data, scripts, values, and hash-type choices are not silently lost before or after signing.
4. CLI message signing has address-type limits that must stay visible. Signing is a commitment boundary. A wallet or SDK can construct intent, but a signature only authorizes the fields covered by the signing algorithm and available UTXO context. The review must confirm that versioned fields, previous outputs, sequences, payloads, gas, covenant data, scripts, values, and hash-type choices are not silently lost before or after signing.
5. unsupported or stale behavior remains needs checking. Signing is a commitment boundary. A wallet or SDK can construct intent, but a signature only authorizes the fields covered by the signing algorithm and available UTXO context. The review must confirm that versioned fields, previous outputs, sequences, payloads, gas, covenant data, scripts, values, and hash-type choices are not silently lost before or after signing.
This mechanism section separates local action, node state, network submission, and accepted evidence. Commands and catalogs are useful only when current source or release evidence keeps them fresh.
How to check it#
| Step | Check | Evidence gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check message signing is not the same as transaction signing. | Use KIP-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE; check version, network, node sync, index, wallet or miner state, and accepted evidence separately. |
| 2 | Check KIP material needs current status checks. | Use KIP-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE; check version, network, node sync, index, wallet or miner state, and accepted evidence separately. |
| 3 | Check wallet core and CLI source support current sign and verify behavior. | Use KIP-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE; check version, network, node sync, index, wallet or miner state, and accepted evidence separately. |
| 4 | Check CLI message signing has address-type limits that must stay visible. | Use KIP-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE; check version, network, node sync, index, wallet or miner state, and accepted evidence separately. |
| 5 | Check unsupported or stale behavior remains needs checking. | Use KIP-0005, RK-WALLET-MESSAGE, RK-CLI-MESSAGE; check version, network, node sync, index, wallet or miner state, and accepted evidence separately. |
When using this page operationally, record the network, software version, node sync state, wallet or miner state, and the observation being made. A local command result is useful evidence, but accepted network consequences require accepted transaction, UTXO, block, or node-source details.
Related Pages#
- wallet-roundtrip-evidence
- wallets-nodes-mining
- wallet-safety-and-backup