Updated homepage.json file

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/342_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:57.221606+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ZmnSCPxj 2023-11-08 20:33:13.829000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:57.221637+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The communication delves into the complexities and vulnerabilities associated with splicing transactions within the Lightning Network, especially when integrating a sub-protocol that enables the addition of arbitrary inputs and outputs to facilitate batching of on-chain operations alongside splicings. The hypothetical scenario presented illustrates a situation where a user attempts to execute a spliced transaction involving multiple channels, aiming to redistribute funds amongst peers, including opening a new channel. However, this process is susceptible to disruptions by malicious actors, as demonstrated by a competitor's ability to double-spend a pre-splice transaction, thereby not only undermining the original transaction but also inadvertently causing harm to other parties involved.
+
+This vulnerability is rooted in the absence of disincentives for disrupting such transactions, given that traditional mechanisms like routing fees do not apply in the context of splicing. This issue is further compounded in scenarios where peers possess little to no reserve funds, making them more inclined to engage in disruptive behaviors despite potential losses. The text suggests that even with strategies to mitigate these risks, such as periodic recreation of splice transactions or leveraging `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` for more flexible transaction confirmation criteria, challenges persist. These include increased operational complexity, heightened susceptibility to bugs, and potential exacerbation of trust issues in zero-confirmation channel use cases.
+
+Moreover, the discussion highlights how the current Lightning Network's architecture, without splice, naturally disincentivizes disruption through circular routing rebalances, a mechanism absent in splicing. This absence indicates a fundamental shift in risk profile when moving liquidity via splicing compared to traditional methods. Consequently, batched splicing is deemed risky under certain conditions, particularly when it involves channels with peers who may have incentives to disrupt the operation.
+
+In summary, while splicing offers a promising avenue for enhancing the efficiency and flexibility of channel management on the Lightning Network, it introduces significant security and operational challenges. These challenges necessitate careful consideration and potentially innovative solutions to mitigate risks without undermining the network's integrity or user trust.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-08T20:33:13.829000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/344_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:43.216433+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>Greg Sanders 2023-11-08 15:21:03.881000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:43.216459+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/2" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>To provide a summary based on the given instructions, I'll need the content of the email or the details you want summarized. The context provided indicates an anticipation of a discussion potentially centered around zero-confirmation transactions (0-conf). However, without the actual content or detailed points from the email, it's challenging to compose a blog post summary adhering to your guidelines. Please share more information or key points from the communication you're referring to, so an effective summary can be crafted following the rules you've outlined.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-08T15:21:03.881000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/348_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:37.202391+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ZmnSCPxj 2023-11-08 17:53:00.053000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:37.202423+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/3" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The distinction between offchain transactions and 0-conf transactions is crucial in understanding the security and trust mechanisms that underpin them. Offchain transactions are characterized by a single input signed by all parties involved, requiring unanimous consensus for any changes. This mechanism inherently protects against double-spending, as all signatories must agree to any transaction, essentially making unauthorized transactions impossible without full cooperation. In contrast, 0-conf transactions can be approved by a single participant, making them more vulnerable to double-spending attacks since a transaction could be altered or not include funds promised to a receiver after the initial agreement.
+
+A significant concern arises with splice-in designs, which aim to blend the characteristics of both offchain and 0-conf transactions. These designs typically involve one input that operates on an n-of-n consensus basis (similar to offchain transactions) but also include additional inputs that may only require a single signature from one of the parties involved (mirroring 0-conf transactions). This structure presents a security risk by potentially allowing an individual participant to execute a double-spend attack on the splice transaction. By combining elements of both transaction types, splice designs inadvertently inherit the vulnerabilities of 0-conf transactions while compromising the security assurances provided by fully offchain methods. This blend creates a scenario where the theoretical safety and consensus benefits of offchain transactions are diluted by the introduction of 0-conf's susceptibility to unilateral actions by individual participants.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-08T17:53:00.053000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/349_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:24.550021+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ZmnSCPxj 2023-11-08 17:58:01.698000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:24.550052+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/4" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The existing splice design in Lightning Network transactions involves two sets of commitment transactions: one set for before the splice (pre-splice) and another set for after the splice (post-splice). This structure is adequate when dealing with the splicing of funds in a single channel. However, challenges arise when considering the simultaneous splicing of multiple channels within a single batched transaction. Such scenarios might include a node desiring to transfer funds out of one channel and into another.
+
+A significant issue with the current design becomes apparent during theft attempts. Specifically, if an attacker publishes a revoked commitment transaction for one channel, it might block the confirmation of the splice transaction for all other involved channels. This potential vulnerability is exacerbated in situations where the cost of attempting theft is minimal or non-existent. For instance, channels that were opened with funds from only one party and have never facilitated incoming transactions for the attacker pose little to no risk for attempting theft. In these cases, the victim has a strong incentive to remove their funds from the compromised channel through splicing.
+
+This overview highlights critical considerations for enhancing the security and functionality of splice transactions within the Lightning Network, especially when managing funds across multiple channels simultaneously. The need for a design that can accommodate the complexities of batched splice transactions without exposing users to increased risks of theft is evident.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-08T17:58:01.698000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/350_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:13.973685+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ajtowns 2023-11-08 19:35:16.019000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:14:13.973716+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/5" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The discussion revolves around the complexities and potential vulnerabilities associated with channel management in blockchain networks, focusing on scenarios involving double-spending, splicing, and channel reopening strategies. One critical point raised is the possibility of a party, referred to as B, exploiting the system by using a revoked commitment transaction to double-spend within a pre-spliced channel. This maneuver raises questions about the necessity and security of choosing between a normal unilateral close, utilizing the current non-splice commitment transaction, and the mechanisms to regain access to funds for further transactions with other parties, such as C and D.
+
+The conversation further explores the implications of a naive action taken by D, who proceeds to send the preimage to the Hash Time-Locked Contract (HTLC) for the Just-In-Time (JIT) channel payment upon witnessing the broadcast of a batched transaction. This scenario underlines the risk associated with forwarding HTLCs without considering the suitability of the channel for zero-confirmation (zeroconf) use, especially when not all inputs are controlled by the forwarding party. The dialogue suggests exploring advanced versions of zeroconf channels that could accommodate entirely new funding transactions without necessitating the closure and reopening of the channel, though it acknowledges the current limitations in achieving such functionality.
+
+There's also a discussion on the need for flexibility in managing channel funds and relationships, especially in situations where a splice operation involves changing participants or funding sources. Specifically, the ability to revert to original channel funding outputs without closing existing channels is highlighted as a desirable feature. This becomes particularly relevant when a splice transaction is rendered obsolete due to the prior spending of a targeted unspent transaction output (UTXO), indicating that dropping the splice transaction under these circumstances should be an acceptable resolution.
+
+In summary, the conversation touches upon several intricate aspects of channel operations within blockchain frameworks, including the challenges of preventing double-spending in channel splicing, the technical considerations for safely forwarding HTLCs, the potential for advanced channel management features to support dynamic funding arrangements, and the procedural nuances involved in adjusting splice transactions following UTXO spending events.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-08T19:35:16.019000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/356_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:38.771345+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ZmnSCPxj 2023-11-09 00:27:50.609000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:38.771379+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/7" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The discussion highlights the inherent complexities and necessary precautions when implementing splicing in conjunction with Just-In-Time (JIT) channel openings within the Lightning Network (LN). It is emphasized that batching splices with JIT channel openings is not feasible due to the nature of JIT operations, which open channels in response to forwarding Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs). This necessitates a nuanced approach to coordination between peers, akin to the `channel_ready` signaling but tailored for splice operations, introducing concepts like `splice_cancelled` or `splice_ready`. Such coordination is crucial as it requires implementations to actively monitor blockchain transactions rather than relying on timeouts. This is because splice transactions, while remaining valid, can be unconfirmed for an extended period due to mempool congestion, during which there's a risk of double-spending by the peer.
+
+Furthermore, the discourse suggests the need for protocol-level messaging, such as a `splice_cancelled` message, to facilitate better communication and management of splice operations. This aspect underlines the potential incentives for participants to disrupt splice agreements, particularly to penalize others for moving funds without incurring routing fees that would otherwise benefit them in a traditional LN setup without splicing. The traditional model incentivizes routing through fees, whereas splicing allows for fund movement without direct compensation to those facilitating the network's liquidity.
+
+To address these challenges and potential disputes over splice operations, it's proposed that there should be mechanisms to reject incoming splice-out requests. Additionally, the conversation points towards the introduction of negotiation facilities within the LN for determining in-network fees for splicing out. These measures aim to ensure fair compensation for participants affected by splice-outs and maintain the integrity and incentive structure of the LN ecosystem. This dialogue underscores the intricate balance between innovation in payment channel technologies and the necessity of maintaining a cooperative and mutually beneficial network environment.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-09T00:27:50.609000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/358_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:25.732040+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ajtowns 2023-11-09 01:07:07.047000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:25.732071+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/8" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The technical intricacies of batching a splice with a Just-In-Time (JIT) channel reveal the limitations and considerations necessary for such operations. The essence of the challenge lies in the nature of JIT channels, which are specifically designed to open in response to an HTLC (Hashed Time-Locked Contract) that needs to be forwarded. This dynamic complicates the process of funding a zero confirmation channel, particularly because it is advisable only to do so when all inputs are securely under one's control. This includes the careful handling of unconfirmed inputs, aside from one's own change, to mitigate any potential risks.
+
+In scenarios where trust and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols are established, there exists a workaround to the aforementioned limitation. This involves routing the HTLC payment into a custodial account first, rather than directly opening a channel. Subsequently, the channel can be opened from this custodial account. Such a mechanism offers a safeguard: should the splice attempt fail, the channel opening is aborted, allowing the funds to revert to the custodial account instead of becoming stuck within the channel. This approach underscores the importance of control and the ability to manage funds effectively in the context of channel operations and HTLC transactions.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-09T01:07:07.047000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>

static/delvingbitcoin/Nov_2023/363_Batched-Splicing-Considered-Risky.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
+  <id>1</id>
+  <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+  <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:15.145831+00:00</updated>
+  <author>
+    <name>ZmnSCPxj 2023-11-09 08:14:33.548000+00:00</name>
+  </author>
+  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="0.9.0">python-feedgen</generator>
+  <entry>
+    <id>1</id>
+    <title>Batched Splicing Considered Risky</title>
+    <updated>2024-11-06T03:13:15.145863+00:00</updated>
+    <link href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/batched-splicing-considered-risky/170/9" rel="alternate"/>
+    <summary>The necessity for a `splice_cancelled` feature within the splice protocol is highlighted due to the current lack of options when a splice transaction fails to confirm. This feature would provide a means to retract from a splice without having to resort to unilateral closure of channels. The concern stems from the risky nature of batched splices involving multiple participants. In such scenarios, the failure of one participant's transaction to confirm could lead to the unilateral closing of all other involved channels. This scenario underscores the importance of developing mechanisms for safe withdrawal from failed splice transactions, thereby mitigating the risks associated with batched splice operations. The discussion points towards an area in the splice protocol that requires further development to enhance reliability and safety for users engaging in complex transactions involving multiple parties.</summary>
+    <published>2023-11-09T08:14:33.548000+00:00</published>
+  </entry>
+</feed>