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.
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
