📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16
📝 Original message:
It isn't obvious to me from the BOLTs if fees can be negative, and I'm
finding uint in the go source code - which suggests not. In scenarios where
the funding of a payment channel has been fully committed in one direction,
why not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes
consider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/e91b10db/attachment.html>;
Benjamin Mord [ARCHIVE] /
npub16y…kjvwy
2023-06-09 12:48:35
in reply to nevent1q…sja9
Author Public Key
npub16ycdmhx5sct3h37cwvjff8le7qlp9k0ngst5ry5n262j6gkesrssskjvwyPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:35Event JSON
{
"id": "a9b6713015dcd201311524c6be6be5cbfa2c2f4974a843aca9d50ae98644c517",
"pubkey": "d130dddcd486171bc7d87324949ff9f03e12d9f3441741929356952d22d980e1",
"created_at": 1686314915,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aac94e2520d5d85249e479c2e245742d89199e35c82a898ea938aaf0a3c0a1b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16\n📝 Original message:\nIt isn't obvious to me from the BOLTs if fees can be negative, and I'm\nfinding uint in the go source code - which suggests not. In scenarios where\nthe funding of a payment channel has been fully committed in one direction,\nwhy not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes\nconsider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/e91b10db/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "65a07529875808330df6702f65b72dedfdb3b671662d24da57c3867a88d4c707197a7b642255a04aed1caf7a37daea4cfc5b4f7faeaa6e06cf366be980599507"
}