📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16
📝 Original message:
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.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:58 PM, William Casarin <jb55 at jb55.com> wrote:
> Benjamin Mord <ben at mord.io> writes:
> > [..]
> > why not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes
> > consider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing?
>
> This was brought up before here [1]:
>
> Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> writes:
> >> Edward Marynarz <edziumarynarz at gmail.com> writes:
> >> Another trivial question: can the fee be negative? It might help with
> some
> >> channel rebalancing.
>
> >In my original implementation, they could be. However, that turns out
> >to be a very strange idea, and complicates routing.
>
> [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/
> 2017-December/000827.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> https://jb55.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/79b12b13/attachment.html>;
Benjamin Mord [ARCHIVE] /
npub16y…kjvwy
2023-06-09 12:48:35
in reply to nevent1q…xrhx
Author Public Key
npub16ycdmhx5sct3h37cwvjff8le7qlp9k0ngst5ry5n262j6gkesrssskjvwyPublished at
2023-06-09 12:48:35Event JSON
{
"id": "7d13e7e15c5115a03a71947ce5c71a4fce49fa4a54038fa92244adb0194c9f6f",
"pubkey": "d130dddcd486171bc7d87324949ff9f03e12d9f3441741929356952d22d980e1",
"created_at": 1686314915,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aac94e2520d5d85249e479c2e245742d89199e35c82a898ea938aaf0a3c0a1b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"86f56d0bff67136da77dfb848c09d092c31aff07d6ab7db6e8a94da222dd97d5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6fb2fd1f8df298fef3464d220666d5ae7184dfe89dc5cc7d3a177579986c31cb"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16\n📝 Original message:\nThanks. It sounds like it was dropped due to difficulty in the routing\nprotocol. Is that difficulty documented somewhere I can review? If so, I\nmight take a crack at a solution to it. But regardless I suggest the\nprotocol should support negative fees, even if an individual routing\nimplementation prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to\nthe implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.\n\nOn Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:58 PM, William Casarin \u003cjb55 at jb55.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Benjamin Mord \u003cben at mord.io\u003e writes:\n\u003e \u003e [..]\n\u003e \u003e why not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes\n\u003e \u003e consider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing?\n\u003e\n\u003e This was brought up before here [1]:\n\u003e\n\u003e Rusty Russell \u003crusty at rustcorp.com.au\u003e writes:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Edward Marynarz \u003cedziumarynarz at gmail.com\u003e writes:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Another trivial question: can the fee be negative? It might help with\n\u003e some\n\u003e \u003e\u003e channel rebalancing.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003eIn my original implementation, they could be. However, that turns out\n\u003e \u003eto be a very strange idea, and complicates routing.\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/\n\u003e 2017-December/000827.html\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://jb55.com\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/79b12b13/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "fb5ced2476a3467d09f7240c5c530d46b0f5fa7f70200473ff7b03bc99257c2472aeb0ecd0e096cc3d1935194fa9749037c9c33313ad1c89a1ef957b924f4a61"
}