<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>Lightning Mailing List (npub1j3…94gll)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1j3t00t9hv042ktszhk8xpnchma60x5kz4etemnslrhf9e9wavywqf94gll</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>🔖 Title: Proposed changes to the splicing specification&#xA;🏷️ Categories: Lightning-dev&#xA;👥 Authors: &#xA;• ZmnSCPxj ( nostr:npub1g5zswf6y48f7fy90jf3tlcuwdmjn8znhzaa4vkmtxaeskca8hpss23ms3l )&#xA;• Dustin Dettmer ( nostr:npub1x54n25utwk7dzwzvk2v0aknptez5gxdwcyrxx2wgc0lnhgvwu72qmkqsqu )&#xA;• Antoine Riard ( nostr:npub1vjzmc45k8dgujppapp2ue20h3l9apnsntgv4c0ukncvv549q64gsz4x8dd )&#xA;🗒️ Conversation Summary: Developers discuss challenges with implementing 0-conf splicing in Bitcoin&#39;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.&#xA;📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-04-03 to 2023-04-04&#xA;✉️ Message Count: 4&#xA;📚 Total Characters in Messages: 18184&#xA;</html></oembed>