📅 Original date posted:2018-01-17
📝 Original message:
Negative fees also come up in the context of peer to peer credit using self issued IOUs (over colored coins or whatever) that are atomically swapped via a lightning HTLC. In this case negative fees may be the norm as there is incentive to rebalance from higher to lower interest IOUs.
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:45 PM, Will Yager <lists at yager.io> wrote:
>
> I agree. Negative shadow prices are incredibly important for optimality of constrained network markets where flows in opposite directions cancel (as is the case with lightning). See for example FTRs. It’s unclear to me how well the analogy holds, but it’s worth considering.
>
> —Will
>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Benjamin Mord <ben at mord.io> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. It sounds like it was dropped due to difficulty in the routing protocol. Is that difficulty documented somewhere I can review? If so, I might take a crack at a solution to it. But regardless I suggest the protocol should support negative fees, even if an individual routing implementation prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to the implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/46be8616/attachment-0001.html>;
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3…48d0u
2023-06-09 12:48:35
in reply to nevent1q…hmtk
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:35Event JSON
{
"id": "f0cea7bb02dec12edb1ad29b19cc3392b0d76293851e94b197f0fe8305f4e059",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686314915,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aac94e2520d5d85249e479c2e245742d89199e35c82a898ea938aaf0a3c0a1b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f338c885de0926da1f2ffd972e349e24eafcf12028bc24e2907b571d7a0ca4b7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6cc1c3b3b1d3feb9832ec8508a1817519ac81d7152d0c8533deac4a9e75f5275"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-17\n📝 Original message:\nNegative fees also come up in the context of peer to peer credit using self issued IOUs (over colored coins or whatever) that are atomically swapped via a lightning HTLC. In this case negative fees may be the norm as there is incentive to rebalance from higher to lower interest IOUs.\n\n\u003e On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:45 PM, Will Yager \u003clists at yager.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I agree. Negative shadow prices are incredibly important for optimality of constrained network markets where flows in opposite directions cancel (as is the case with lightning). See for example FTRs. It’s unclear to me how well the analogy holds, but it’s worth considering. \n\u003e \n\u003e —Will\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Benjamin Mord \u003cben at mord.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Thanks. It sounds like it was dropped due to difficulty in the routing protocol. Is that difficulty documented somewhere I can review? If so, I might take a crack at a solution to it. But regardless I suggest the protocol should support negative fees, even if an individual routing implementation prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to the implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/46be8616/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "aff6533dcfddc09be5a7f8c35175b77688730ee51b67d3602e8335c84da3e2445b987004a447fb9cdec980c05064ad4b22b56cb506b9296d15ae775b016025de"
}