Good morning Johan,
> C must also make sure the detour route stays within the fee limit of course.
This is indeed quite correct. Contrariwise, if the detour route charges a fee
that is even just 0.001 satoshi lower than the fee that C would charge, then it
would still be rational to make this attempt: there is a nonzero change to earn
0.001 satoshi, whereas the alternative (fail the route) earns C 0 fees.
Another issue, is that the by inserting the switch-ephemeral-keys hop packet, a
hop packet at the end may be pushed off, and C cannot know this. However, the
same argument applies: the alternative is earning 0 fees.
Christian Decker pointed out that the D->C->A cycle could be rebalanced so that
the C<->D link could pass the payment through. However, this has the slight
disadvantage. If the route actually terminates to a payee further off at F,
and it fails between F and E, then C has already paid for the rebalancing.
Using this technique, C neither earns nor loses money.
This also increases the anonymity set, of rendez-vous routing. A rendez-vous
supporting node may be used, not for rendez-vous, but instead, this link-level
payment rerouting.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
