Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants

Antoine expresses his gratitude to Bastien for his additional comments. He acknowledges that he now has a better understanding of the concept, which is similar to a regular splice where one participant can potentially double-spend at any time using a previous commit transaction. Antoine also mentions that they are already aware of the liquidity griefing issue and advises waiting for a few confirmations before using spawned channels.In the case of this model, where the splice is a "standard" nVersion=2 transaction with a reasonable feerate for non-delayed broadcast, Antoine agrees that his previous comment does not apply. However, he brings up a hypothetical future scenario where the feerate picked up by the batch splicing may not be compelling enough during mempool spikes. In such a situation, interactive re-generation of a bumped Replace-By-Fee (RBF) transaction might not be possible. He expresses concern that re-broadcasting the batch splice transaction package with a bumped Child Pays for Parent (CPFP) might be affected by this issue. Antoine states that this concern needs to be verified.Best regards,Antoine