Following up on the Discord Question for @someone235.
Toccata's feature freeze shipped OpCheckSigFromStack (0xd7) and OpZkPrecompile (0xa6, per KIP-16) at the consensus level. Both opcodes are active in TN12 today.
Current state. silverc has no language-level way to emit either opcode. The only path I'm aware of is raw bytecode emission via kaspa_txscript::ScriptBuilder outside of silverc.
The request is to add language-level support for both opcodes in silverc.
Is this any of the devs considerations?
- High-level builtins like checkSigFromStack(sig, msg, pubkey) and verifyZkProof(tag, vk, proof, public_inputs) — friendliest for typical use.
- A general inline-assembly escape hatch (e.g., a bytecode { ... } block) — more future-proof for opcodes that ship before getting named language features.
- Both.
Several common patterns currently can't be expressed cleanly in silverc — threshold / aggregate signatures via CSFS, ZK-verified covenants for identity attestations, oracles, conditional payments, governance flows.
preciate the help
Following up on the Discord Question for @someone235.
Toccata's feature freeze shipped OpCheckSigFromStack (0xd7) and OpZkPrecompile (0xa6, per KIP-16) at the consensus level. Both opcodes are active in TN12 today.
Current state. silverc has no language-level way to emit either opcode. The only path I'm aware of is raw bytecode emission via kaspa_txscript::ScriptBuilder outside of silverc.
The request is to add language-level support for both opcodes in silverc.
Is this any of the devs considerations?
Several common patterns currently can't be expressed cleanly in silverc — threshold / aggregate signatures via CSFS, ZK-verified covenants for identity attestations, oracles, conditional payments, governance flows.
preciate the help