📅 Original date posted:2022-09-01
📝 Original message:
On 7/1/22 08:02, Joost Jager wrote:> Any thoughts from routing node
operators would be welcome too (or links > to previous threads).
I'm a routing node operator and have been for over a year. I've been
wanting this feature (plus negative fees) for a long time now.
Reason 1:
For peers that tend to be liquidity sources (i.e. the liquidity tends to
be all on my side), there's currently no way to keep a channel in
balance with fees. All I can do is set a zero outbound fee and usually
that's not good enough :/. A high inbound fee would discourage payments
through that route.
Reason 2:
Not all inbound traffic is created equally. If two different peers wish
to route through me to the same outbound peer, I may value the two
forwards differently depending on who the sender is. E.g.
A->C where A is a great peer that I frequently route payments to
B->C where B is a peer that I rarely route payments to, or otherwise
wish to preserve more inbound from
I'm much happier routing A->C than I am routing B->C, but there's
currently no way of expressing this to the market through fees. All I
can do is htlc-intercept B->C and reject it, but this damages my
reputation obviously.
Reason 3:
Greater expressivity in fee-setting generally allows markets to push
more flows off-chain without having to loop or open new channels. While
I think negative fees would be more impactful for this, inbound fees are
helpful as well. Combining negative + inbound fees is where the real
magic would happen IMO.
Owen Gunden [ARCHIVE] /
npub130…hyp4t
2023-06-09 13:06:47
in reply to nevent1q…h7m9
Author Public Key
npub130jddflllc905dlmj0pks9j6fdtld9eu0pql9gm86dxts7whrvxq5hyp4tPublished at
2023-06-09 13:06:47Event JSON
{
"id": "bcd3c3a7f1bce9fc02bcc1f1da9d45f176b7bb59310353056d70d21a95274ed4",
"pubkey": "8be4d6a7fffe0afa37fb93c368165a4b57f6973c7841f2a367d34cb879d71b0c",
"created_at": 1686316007,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1f755cb75f6b71df7fe4f8bc612ef36dc7d93dfe58f069a8e843686e1570a80d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-09-01\n📝 Original message:\nOn 7/1/22 08:02, Joost Jager wrote:\u003e Any thoughts from routing node \noperators would be welcome too (or links \u003e to previous threads).\nI'm a routing node operator and have been for over a year. I've been \nwanting this feature (plus negative fees) for a long time now.\n\nReason 1:\nFor peers that tend to be liquidity sources (i.e. the liquidity tends to \nbe all on my side), there's currently no way to keep a channel in \nbalance with fees. All I can do is set a zero outbound fee and usually \nthat's not good enough :/. A high inbound fee would discourage payments \nthrough that route.\n\nReason 2:\nNot all inbound traffic is created equally. If two different peers wish \nto route through me to the same outbound peer, I may value the two \nforwards differently depending on who the sender is. E.g.\n\nA-\u003eC where A is a great peer that I frequently route payments to\nB-\u003eC where B is a peer that I rarely route payments to, or otherwise \nwish to preserve more inbound from\n\nI'm much happier routing A-\u003eC than I am routing B-\u003eC, but there's \ncurrently no way of expressing this to the market through fees. All I \ncan do is htlc-intercept B-\u003eC and reject it, but this damages my \nreputation obviously.\n\nReason 3:\nGreater expressivity in fee-setting generally allows markets to push \nmore flows off-chain without having to loop or open new channels. While \nI think negative fees would be more impactful for this, inbound fees are \nhelpful as well. Combining negative + inbound fees is where the real \nmagic would happen IMO.",
"sig": "d31a3af307ae3041088c03dc81a462b43c60acb6fc0749dac2490e2c7dec793db35ba34b53acc33cd832a24713efbc5018f75cca9bd52229aeac2968f5d5430b"
}