{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Lightning Mailing List (npub1j3…94gll)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1j3t00t9hv042ktszhk8xpnchma60x5kz4etemnslrhf9e9wavywqf94gll","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"🔖 Title: Proposed changes to the splicing specification\n🏷️ Categories: Lightning-dev\n👥 Authors: \n• ZmnSCPxj ( nostr:npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l )\n• Dustin Dettmer ( nostr:npub1x54n25utwk7dzwzvk2v0aknptez5gxdwcyrxx2wgc0lnhgvwu72qmkqsqu )\n• Antoine Riard ( nostr:npub1vjzmc45k8dgujppapp2ue20h3l9apnsntgv4c0ukncvv549q64gsz4x8dd )\n🗒️ Conversation Summary: Developers discuss challenges with implementing 0-conf splicing in Bitcoin's Lightning Network, including double-spending risk. Swap-in-potentiam addresses provide implicit protection against this risk. Proposals have been made to protect against double-spend risk during splice-in and channel factory construction. A proposal for simplifying and improving the splicing protocol has also been shared.\n📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-04-03 to 2023-04-04\n✉️ Message Count: 4\n📚 Total Characters in Messages: 18184\n"}