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

Async receive: update static invoices when stale

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Valentine Wallace

80/100 · Strong
Async receive: update static invoices when stale

Previously, for every one of our async receive offers that are in use, we would
send a fresh invoice once on every timer tick/once a minute. It'd be better to
check if the invoice is actually kinda-stale before updating it to avoid
bombarding the server, so we do so here using the new invoice_created field
added in the previous commit.
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This change is a performance and resource-usage improvement, not a security fix. It stops a Lightning node from sending a fresh invoice to the static invoice server every minute for every active offer. Instead, it now only refreshes invoices after a two-hour threshold (or immediately if the offer is still pending confirmation). That reduces unnecessary network traffic and load on the server, and lowers the chance that a bug or misconfiguration could accidentally flood the server with updates.

Recommended action

No immediate security action required. Treat as a normal code-quality/performance improvement. Reviewers may want to confirm that the 2-hour threshold is acceptable for keeping channel/fee info in static invoices reasonably fresh, and that the new `invoice_created_at` field is correctly persisted across cache serialization.

Security signals we found

01

Rate-limiting of outbound invoice refresh messages reduces potential for self-inflicted DoS or server load issues

02

No cryptographic, memory-safety, or authorization changes

03

No input validation, parsing, or secret-handling changes

04

Behavior change is defensive hardening against resource exhaustion rather than a vulnerability patch

Risk score

Why this scored 26/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 4/30
Exploitability 2/25
Stealth signal 3/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 8/10
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.