AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Moderate 63 Bitcoin

refresh a node when its script hash status returns to an earlier value, retiring the mitigation for electrs < 0.9.0

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Craig Raw

50/100 · Thin
refresh a node when its script hash status returns to an earlier value, retiring the mitigation for electrs < 0.9.0
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component! No meaningful explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes how Sparrow Wallet tracks Electrum server notifications about Bitcoin address activity. Previously, the app remembered every status value it had ever seen for each address and ignored repeats of any earlier value. Now it only remembers the latest status and treats any change—even a return to an earlier value—as a real update. The old behavior could leave the wallet showing transactions that the server no longer has (for example, after a mempool replacement or a chain reorganization), which could mislead users about their balance or transaction history.

Recommended action

Treat this as a correctness/reliability fix with user-security implications. Users relying on accurate wallet state should upgrade to a build containing this commit, especially if they connect to public Electrum servers or use wallets with frequent mempool activity. Review whether any downstream code assumes the old list-of-statuses behavior, since the data structure and semantics changed.

Security signals we found

01

State desynchronization between wallet client and Electrum server

02

Retired historical-status whitelist could cause stale transaction data to persist

03

Mempool eviction/replacement or reorg could return scripthash status to earlier value

04

User-visible balance or history inconsistency possible before fix

05

No explicit cryptographic, authentication, or remote-code-execution signal in diff

Risk score

Why this scored 63/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 18/30
Exploitability 12/25
Stealth signal 10/15
Affected reach 12/15
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.