SIP-044: Clarity 6, staking and PoX post-conditions, and removal of the cost-voting contract by jbencin-stacks · Pull Request #267 · stacksgov/sips

jbencin-stacks · 2026-04-16T19:11:19Z

Note

This is a work in progress, and more items will likely be added to Clarity 6

This SIP specifies the next version of the Stacks blockchain scripting language, Clarity 6, which addresses several limitations and inconveniences that have been reported by Clarity developers.

314159265359879 · 2026-06-08T08:03:00Z

I think it is convenient to give this a SIP number right away for ease of referencing lets go with SIP-044

…) changes

werner-stacks · 2026-06-17T07:51:06Z

@jbencin-stacks thanks for adding these items to the SIP. I see you changed the title, and removed the SIP-044 number.

Lets keep the SIP number in the title of this issue it has already been referenced elsewhere.
You can change the rest of the title however I would prefer if it was still descriptive of the content i.e. SIP-044 Clarity 6, staking and PoX post-conditions and removal of the cost-voting contract. We've never referred to "epoch"'s in the title, lets keep that out.
We can add a column in the table suggested here with epochs to enhance visibility into what epoch activated certain SIP's.

The work to deal with problematic transactions I don't think need mention in the title.

friedger · 2026-06-24T05:19:28Z

+| field      | size    | encoding       |
+| ---------- | ------- | -------------- |
+| `tx_index` | 4 bytes | big-endian u32 |
+| `category` | 1 byte  | u8             |


What are examples for categories? How are they defined?

This is intentionally left undefined. An example of a transaction that would end up in here would be something that would currently be silently dropped from the mempool, that the miner considers "problematic" due to some case that it hits that it shouldn't have. If 70% of the signers agree that it is problematic, then it would be allowed to be included in this list. The category would identify what kind of issue it hit.

Editors have approved and the SIP can move to CAB votes.

314159265359879

This is looking great for editor sign-off, thanks!

314159265359879

I have a few more suggestions before we merge this.

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T11:48:01Z

+      none
+    ))
+  );; Returns (err u0)
+  (restrict-assets? tx-sender ((with-stacking u1000000000000))


((with-stacking u1000000000000))

this needs to be "with-staking"

To show the success path, one of the two numbers must change too, right?:

Raise the allowance: (with-staking u1100000000000) with the stake call unchanged, or
Lower the stake: keep (with-staking u1000000000000) and stake u1000000000000.

probably a copy/paste mistake.

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:07:48Z

+
+Parts of this SIP depend upon
+[SIP-045 (Bitcoin Staking)](https://github.com/adriano-stacks/sips/blob/main/sips/sip-xxx/sip-0XX-pox-5-bitcoin-staking.md)
+and intends to activate together with it.


grammer and sementics error here with this sentence. I suggest this instead:

Parts of this SIP depend upon SIP-045 (Bitcoin Staking), and this SIP is intended to activate together with it.

(not other issue about link)

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:13:42Z

+
+Discussions-To:
+
+# Abstract


Abstract and Introduction omit the staking post-conditions, although they are in the title and the specification defines the identifiers.

Oops, those post-conditions were moved into SIP-045. I will clean that up.

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:30:18Z

+| yes  | `11111111111mdWK2VXcrA1f72DmUku` | `SP00000000001WPAWSDEDMQ0B9M6HQVS7Q6` | `7965732d7369702d3434` | yes-sip-44 |
+| no   | `111111111111ACW5wa4RwyfJspnNhu` | `SP000000000006WVSDEDMQ0B9M6K3NTSJK`  | `6e6f2d7369702d3434`   | no-sip-44  |
+
+If the SIP is approved, a Bitcoin block height will be selected to activate the


To make sure activation criteria is falsifiable replace this sentence

If the SIP is approved, a Bitcoin block height will be selected to activate the new behavior.

with:

Voting will take place over the same voting window as SIP-045, to be identified during the community review period, following the precedent of SIP-021 and SIP-029 of finalizing block heights during vote preparation. If the criteria are not met within that window, the SIP is Rejected.

If approved, the activation block height will be finalized during vote preparation, together with SIP-045.

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:51:40Z

+In order for this SIP to activate, the following criteria must be met:
+
+- At least 80 million stacked STX must vote, with at least 80% of all stacked
+  STX committed by voting must be in favor of the proposal (vote "yes").


Replace the first bullit with this to avoid two readings:

At least 80 million stacked STX must participate in the vote, and at least
80% of all stacked STX committed by voting must be in favor of the proposal
(vote "yes").

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:52:08Z

+block height at which the voting started (preventing the same STX from being
+transferred between accounts and used to effectively double vote).
+
+Solo stackers only can also vote by sending a bitcoin dust transaction (6000


and while were are here

"Solo stackers only can" → "Only solo stackers can"

I think the correct meaning we want would be to just drop the "only". I think it should just say "Stackers can also vote..."

Actually, no it needs to be more specific than that, right? Like your voting power is based on the source Bitcoin address matching your PoX address, so it is "Solo stackers only".

I'm going to make it,

Solo stackers can also vote by sending a bitcoin dust transaction (6000 sats) to the corresponding bitcoin address, from their PoX address.

314159265359879 · 2026-07-10T12:57:26Z

+
+License: BSD-2-Clause
+
+Sign-off:


when the status updates add a line here. Editor sign-off was on the 6th of July #267 (review)
CAB sign-off etc.

brice-stacks · 2026-07-10T19:48:19Z

@314159265359879 your comments are all addressed in 93980a2. Thanks!

jbencin-stacks added 5 commits April 16, 2026 12:52

Initial draft of Clarity 6 SIP

5d0ac01

Improvements to wording/formatting

4725964

Add get-bitcoin-tx-output? and verify-merkle-proof

543b086

Fix description of get-burn-block-info?

5fb0010

Add ed25519-verify

2ef2120

jbencin-stacks mentioned this pull request May 21, 2026

Feat/ed25519-verify stacks-network/stacks-core#7196

Merged

5 tasks

jbencin-stacks added 4 commits May 22, 2026 11:54

Add comment about activation upon Epoch 4.0

dc62bab

Add variadic concat

d738e74

Clarify that by "variables" we really mean all identifiers

b2f7680

Clarity rules around using bare _ as an identifier

6560d0b

jbencin-stacks mentioned this pull request May 27, 2026

feat: Allow identifiers to begin with _ stacks-network/stacks-core#7243

Open

5 tasks

Remove items we don't have time to complete

26b3850

clairetopalian marked this pull request as ready for review June 8, 2026 14:12

jbencin-stacks and others added 4 commits June 10, 2026 16:01

Minor clarifications around _-prefixing

a1d3bab

feat: add staking PCs, problematic txs, and cost-voting

1a0362b

chore: set SIP number to 044

facda37

chore: update activation and reference impl

1fb08f9

cylewitruk reviewed Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread sips/sip-044/sip-044-clarity6.md

jbencin-stacks commented Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread sips/sip-044/sip-044-clarity6.md Outdated

jbencin-stacks changed the title ~~Clarity 6~~ Stacks Epoch 4.0 Jun 16, 2026

jbencin-stacks changed the title ~~Stacks Epoch 4.0~~ Stacks Epoch 4.0 (including Clarity 6) Jun 16, 2026

jbencin-stacks commented Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread sips/sip-04x/sip-04x-clarity6.md Outdated

chore: Change title and abstract to reflect additional (non-Clarity 6…

ec7146b

…) changes

jbencin-stacks changed the title ~~Stacks Epoch 4.0 (including Clarity 6)~~ SIP-044: Clarity 6, staking and PoX post-conditions, and removal of the cost-voting contract Jun 17, 2026

chore: Change title

0526d01

This was referenced Jun 22, 2026

chore: remove cost voting r1 - epoch 4.0 disablement gate stacks-network/stacks-core#7341

Merged

chore: remove cost voting r2 - full functional removal (post-4.0) stacks-network/stacks-core#7342

Draft

friedger reviewed Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread sips/sip-044/sip-044-clarity6.md Outdated

friedger reviewed Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread sips/sip-044/sip-044-clarity6.md Outdated

Remove _-prefixing due to time constraints

af73b34

friedger reviewed Jun 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

jbencin-stacks and others added 4 commits June 24, 2026 10:51

Apply Friedger's suggestions

c297d83

Add a few words to address Cyle's comment

7f0aa87

chore: move post-conditions to SIP-045

9fd7c03

chore: move to Accepted state

5f93a83

Editors have approved and the SIP can move to CAB votes.

brice-stacks mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2026

SIP-045 PoX-5: Bitcoin Staking and Emission Schedule Alignment #270

Merged

314159265359879 previously approved these changes Jul 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

brice-stacks added 2 commits July 7, 2026 11:27

add cost change paragraph

437d912

chore: formatting

8d7b5c7

brice-stacks dismissed 314159265359879’s stale review via 8d7b5c7 July 7, 2026 15:28

brice-stacks requested a review from 314159265359879 July 7, 2026 18:44

314159265359879 previously approved these changes Jul 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: minor updates based on editor review

93980a2

brice-stacks dismissed 314159265359879’s stale review via 93980a2 July 10, 2026 19:46

brice-stacks requested review from 314159265359879 and clairetopalian July 10, 2026 19:48

add tech cab sign-off

4935495

314159265359879 approved these changes Jul 13, 2026

View reviewed changes


		Discussions-To:

		# Abstract


		License: BSD-2-Clause

		Sign-off:

Uh oh!

Conversation

jbencin-stacks commented Apr 16, 2026

Uh oh!

314159265359879 commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

werner-stacks commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

314159265359879 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

314159265359879 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

brice-stacks commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants