AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 32 Bitcoin

Consume InteractiveTxConstructor after error checks

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Jeffrey Czyz

73/100 · Adequate
Consume InteractiveTxConstructor after error checks

InteractiveTxConstructor contains the users contributed inputs. When an
interactive tx sessions is aborted, the user will need to be notified
with an event indicating which inputs and outputs were contributed. This
allows them to re-use inputs that are no longer in use. This commit
ensures the InteractiveTxConstructor is only consumed after all error
checking. That way, in the case of a failure, we're able to produce an
event from its input data.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This change fixes a bookkeeping problem in Lightning Dev Kit's interactive transaction negotiation. Previously, if something went wrong while finalizing a funding or splicing transaction, the list of inputs and outputs the user had contributed could be lost before the user could be told about them. The patch delays consuming that constructor object until after all error checks pass, so on failure the software can still report which coins were involved and let the user spend them again. It is a correctness/availability improvement rather than a remote exploit.

Recommended action

Review as a normal correctness fix. Ensure downstream event handling actually consumes NegotiationError.contributed_inputs and contributed_outputs to release UTXOs. No emergency patch required.

Security signals we found

01

Resource lifecycle fix: constructor consumed only after successful validation

02

New NegotiationError type captures contributed inputs/outputs for failure events

03

Splicing failure path now restores ConstructingTransaction state instead of dropping it

04

Funding outpoint passed explicitly rather than recomputed from signing session

05

No remote code execution or cryptographic bypass evident

Risk score

Why this scored 32/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 3/25
Stealth signal 4/15
Affected reach 6/15
Confidence 7/10
Evidence quality 4/5
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.