Batch exchange withdrawal to lightning requires covenants

Antoine is responding to Bastien's comments about a regular splice in a transaction. He mentions that in this model, where the splice is a "standard" nVersion=2 transaction with a reasonable fee rate, his previous comment does not apply. However, he raises concerns about future scenarios where the fee rate of the batch splicing may not be compelling enough during mempool spikes. In such cases, re-generating a bumped RBF (Replace-By-Fee) transaction may not be feasible. Antoine acknowledges that this concern needs to be verified.

Overall, Antoine's response addresses the liquidity griefing issue and emphasizes the need to wait for confirmations before using spawned channels. He also highlights the potential challenges related to fee rates in future scenarios and the impact on batch splice transactions.