<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] wrote</title><author_name>ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] (npub1g5…3ms3l)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2023-10-17&#xA;🗒️ Summary of this message: 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.&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;Good morning Bastien,&#xA;&#xA;I have not gotten around to posting it yet, but I have a write-up in my computer with the title:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Batched Splicing Considered Risky&#xA;&#xA;The core of the risk is that if:&#xA;&#xA;* I have no funds right now in a channel (e.g. the LSP allowed me to have 0 reserve, or this is a newly-singlefunded channel from the LSP to me).&#xA;* I have an old state (e.g. for a newly-singlefunded channel, it could have been `update_fee`d, so that the initial transaction is old state).&#xA;&#xA;Then if I participate in a batched splice, I can disrupt the batched splice by broadcasting the old state and somehow convincing miners to confirm it before the batched splice.&#xA;&#xA;Thus, it is important for *any* batched splicing mechanism to have a backout, where if the batched splice transaction can no longer be confirmed due to some participant disrupting it by posting an old commitment transaction, either a subset of the splice is re-created or the channels revert back to pre-splice state (with knowledge that the post-splice state can no longer be confirmed).&#xA;&#xA;I know that current splicing tech is to run both the pre-splice and post-splice state simultaneously until the splicing transaction is confirmed.&#xA;However we need to *also* check if the splicing transaction *cannot* be confirmed --- by checking if the other inputs to the splice transaction were already consumed by transactions that have deeply confirmed, and in that case, to drop the post-splice state and revert to the pre-splice state.&#xA;I do not know if existing splice implementations actually perform such a check.&#xA;Unless all splice implementations do this, then any kind of batched splicing is risky.&#xA;&#xA;Regards,&#xA;ZmnSCPxj</html></oembed>