Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants

The email is a response to someone named Bastien, thanking him for additional comments. The sender mentions that they now understand the concept better, comparing it to a regular splice where one participant may be able to double-spend at any time with a previous commit transaction. They acknowledge that this is a known issue and advise waiting for a few confirmations before using spawned channels.The sender then discusses a hypothetical future scenario where the feerate of the batch splicing is not compelling enough during mempool spikes. They express concern that re-generating a bumped RBF (Replace-By-Fee) might not be an option in this case. They mention that re-broadcasting the batch splice transaction package with a bumped CPFP (Child-Pays-for-Parent) could be affected by this concern, but it needs to be verified.Overall, the email is a technical discussion about the potential challenges and considerations related to the use of a "splice" feature in a blockchain system.