AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 26 Bitcoin

Revert "Bolt quote updates and improvements"

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Níckolas Goline

68/100 · Adequate
Revert "Bolt quote updates and improvements"

Reverts commits b0e728572b through aa6ecad90e (11 commits).

This PR was accidentally merged without proper review. The `channeld.c` splice-detection logic (`is_splice_active` + txid comparison) was NACKed by @ddustin as deviating from the spec, the correct approach requires a `funding_tx_index` on the inflight rather than a `txid` comparison.

A clean replacement PR will be opened for discussion once the approach is agreed upon.

Changelog-None
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit is a wholesale revert of an earlier pull request that was accidentally merged without proper review. It removes new splice-handling logic in the channel daemon, stricter bech32 padding checks, and several BOLT 11/12 quote and validation updates. The revert itself is a defensive cleanup: it restores the older, reviewed code because the maintainers decided the new approach was not spec-compliant. It is not a security patch in the usual sense, but it does undo code that had been rejected as incorrect, reducing the risk of protocol misbehavior.

Recommended action

Treat this as a code-quality/revert commit rather than an urgent security fix. Review the replacement pull request once it is opened to ensure the spec-compliant funding_tx_index approach is implemented and reviewed before merge. Monitor for any follow-up security advisories from the Core Lightning team, but none are indicated here.

Security signals we found

01

Reverts unreviewed code that was rejected as spec-deviating

02

Removes txid-comparison splice detection heuristic in channel reconnection

03

Removes stricter bech32 padding-bit validation

04

No explicit security bug or vulnerability described

Risk score

Why this scored 26/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 5/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 5/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 4/10
Evidence quality 2/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.