-
@ Conversation Details
2023-10-18 13:02:10📝 Summary: Batched splicing can be risky due to certain conditions like no funds in a channel and using an old state. It is important for batched splicing mechanisms to have a backout option to prevent disruptions caused by confirmed old states. Additionally, not all splice implementations performing a check can lead to potential loss of funds.
👥 Authors: • Greg Sanders ( nostr:npub1jdl3plz00rvxwc6g2ckemzrgg0amx5wen4kfvs3laxtssxvk9cvsf3gh0m ) • ZmnSCPxj ( nostr:npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l )
📅 Messages Date: 2023-10-17
✉️ Message Count: 3
📚 Total Characters in Messages: 5405
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by ZmnSCPxj on 17/10/2023: Batched splicing can be risky if certain conditions are met, such as having no funds in a channel and using an old state. It is important for batched splicing mechanisms to have a backout option to prevent disruptions.
✉️ Message by Greg Sanders on 17/10/2023: Batched splicing is risky because if an old state is broadcasted and confirmed before the splice, it can disrupt the process. It is important for batched splicing mechanisms to have a backout option.
✉️ Message by ZmnSCPxj on 17/10/2023: Batched splicing can be risky if not all splice implementations perform a check to ensure subsequent splices confirm, potentially leading to loss of funds.
Follow nostr:npub1j3t00t9hv042ktszhk8xpnchma60x5kz4etemnslrhf9e9wavywqf94gll for full threads