AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 34 Bitcoin

Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Wilmer Paulino

68/100 · Adequate
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu

Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This patch fixes a logic bug in how a Lightning node responds when a peer asks to pause channel activity (a protocol feature called 'quiescence'). Previously, the node would wrongly apply its own local splice/RBF fee checks before replying to the peer's pause request, which could prevent it from responding and stall the protocol. The fix separates 'we initiated the pause' from 'the peer initiated the pause' so the node can answer promptly without running the local checks.

Recommended action

Review and merge; this is a correctness/liveness fix for the BOLT quiescence/splicing flow. Consider whether the stall could be triggered in production and if a release note is warranted, but no immediate emergency response is indicated by the diff alone.

Security signals we found

01

Protocol stall / liveness issue: local splice RBF eligibility check blocked response to peer-initiated quiescence

02

State-machine ordering fix: pending-update check now precedes initiator/non-initiator decision

03

Regression test added: test_peer_initiated_stfu_skips_local_rbf_feerate_check

Risk score

Why this scored 34/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
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.