Negative fees also come up in the context of peer to peer credit using self issued IOUs (over colored coins or whatever) that are atomically swapped via a lightning HTLC. In this case negative fees may be the norm as there is incentive to rebalance from higher to lower interest IOUs.
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:45 PM, Will Yager <li...@yager.io> wrote: > > 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 <b...@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. > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
