📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16
📝 Original message:
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/b22f2a29/attachment-0001.html>;
Will Yager [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dn…a8mgc
2023-06-09 12:48:35
in reply to nevent1q…xl4w
Author Public Key
npub1dnqu8va360ltnqewepgg5xqh2xdvs8t32tgvs5eaatz2ne6l2f6sna8mgcSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:35Event JSON
{
"id": "f338c885de0926da1f2ffd972e349e24eafcf12028bc24e2907b571d7a0ca4b7",
"pubkey": "6cc1c3b3b1d3feb9832ec8508a1817519ac81d7152d0c8533deac4a9e75f5275",
"created_at": 1686314915,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aac94e2520d5d85249e479c2e245742d89199e35c82a898ea938aaf0a3c0a1b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7d13e7e15c5115a03a71947ce5c71a4fce49fa4a54038fa92244adb0194c9f6f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d130dddcd486171bc7d87324949ff9f03e12d9f3441741929356952d22d980e1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16\n📝 Original message:\nI 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\n—Will\n\nOn Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Benjamin Mord \u003cben at mord.io\u003e wrote:\n\n\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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/b22f2a29/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "6594a470f77c68b70fd8722e447f9177fc0d4ee9523f033c2b794601060f1efc92df37a870365e9b13cb77a11c5b9ca50e259e77f81ea7b09e3d28e448c847f0"
}