AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 35 Bitcoin

swaps: followup 10303

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by f321x

51/100 · Thin
swaps: followup 10303

small followup replacing tx height integers with const variables and
considering claim tx broadcast too if there is an unconfirmed parent
(height -1).
✓ Subject identifies a change✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This is a small cleanup change in Electrum's submarine swap (atomic swap) code. It replaces hardcoded transaction height numbers with named constants and slightly adjusts when a claim transaction can be broadcast. The change allows a claim transaction to be considered 'already broadcast' even if its parent transaction is still unconfirmed. This is a follow-up to a previous change and appears aimed at preventing duplicate broadcasts or premature broadcasting, not at introducing a vulnerability.

Recommended action

No immediate action required. This appears to be a defensive follow-up fix. Users running submarine swaps should ensure they are on a version including this commit and the preceding PR 10303. If reviewing for security, verify that the claim tx broadcast conditions correctly handle all edge cases (unconfirmed parent, local transactions, future transactions).

Security signals we found

01

Submarine swap claim transaction broadcast logic changed

02

Hardcoded transaction height integers replaced with named constants

03

Claim tx now considered already broadcast if parent is unconfirmed (height -1)

04

Prevents potential premature or duplicate claim transaction broadcast

Risk score

Why this scored 35/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 6/10
Evidence quality 3/5
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.