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

LNWallet: set trampoline invoice feature independently

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by f321x

73/100 · Adequate
LNWallet: set trampoline invoice feature independently

Make the trampoline signaling in bolt11 invoices dependent upon all
unfrozen channels being with trampoline peers instead of the trampoline
config.
Stops automatically freezing non-trampoline channels for receiving if
trampoline is enabled.

One effect of this change is that now we don't signal trampoline support
anymore in the invoice even if trampoline is enabled, if one of the
channels is with a non trampoline peer.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes how Electrum decides whether to advertise 'trampoline routing' support on Lightning invoices and stops automatically freezing non-trampoline channels for receiving when trampoline mode is on. Previously, enabling trampoline could silently block payments through non-trampoline channels; now the wallet only advertises trampoline if every usable channel supports it, and users can receive through non-trampoline channels again. The change is more of a bug fix / behavior correction than a critical security patch, but it could affect payment routing and user expectations.

Recommended action

Review whether the new all-channels-must-be-trampoline condition correctly handles edge cases such as closed, force-closing, or offline channels, and verify that invoice feature bits accurately reflect the wallet's current routing capabilities. No urgent security patch appears required based solely on this diff.

Security signals we found

01

Behavior change in Lightning invoice feature signaling

02

Removal of automatic channel freezing based on trampoline configuration

03

Potential for invoice feature bits to no longer match actual routing capabilities if logic is incomplete

Risk score

Why this scored 35/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 6/25
Stealth signal 5/15
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.