Good morning John-John,

> > > That would not regard the size of the payments though? A payment leaving 
> > > the balance at the far end would pay the same proportional fee as one 
> > > close to the middle.
> >
> > "Proportional" means the fee paid is greater if the payment being forwarded 
> > is greater.
> > That is what "proportional" means.
> My initial point was that the fee would be proportionally higher for every 
> satoshi used closer to the far end of the channel.
> So the fee would proportional to the state of the channel in addition to the 
> size of the payment.

But the final state of the channel has a subtractive relationship from the 
payment size.
So I fear we have largely fallen into an argument on exact semantics and 
mathematical models that may not be particularly relevant to pragmatic use of 

The "standard" solution to balance concerns and manipulations of fee structure 
has, I think, been "just make the proportional feerate itself proportional to 
how much the other side owns on the channel".
Regardless of whatever mathematical model you use, in the long run this will 
achieve your goal of a balanced channel anyway, whatever inaccuracy it may have 
in the short term.

Again, JIT Routing is superior to this anyway, as you have direct evidence that 
rebalancing would be beneficial to you under the current network conditions.
Balance is not always beneficial: consider a balanced channel containing 0.75 
mBTC on both sides, that cannot serve a forwarding request for 1.0 mBTC in 
either direction.
JIT Routing handles that case by simply transferring at least 0.25mBTC from 
some other channel, then serving the forwarding request.


Lightning-dev mailing list

Reply via email to