Good morning Daki, While certainly a very imaginative approach to the problem, do note that there is a substantive difference between running a Bitcoin fullnode and running a Lightning forwarding node.
Namely: * A Bitcoin fullnode does not risk any lockup of its funds just to run. * A Lightning forwarding node *does* risk having its funds locked and unavailable. While a payment is being forwarded, the funds involved in the forwarding are unavailable for use by the putative owner of the funds. Instead, the funds are kept in an HTLC until the payment forwarding is resolved in either success or failure. Having your funds locked and unavailable to you, even transiently, is only tenable if you get something in return, e.g. a return on investment. Of course, you can also counter-argue that in practice, the amounts and timeframes are so short that any return on investment would be ridiculously minuscule, which is why in practice most forwarding nodes will earn 0 or even negative net income. On the other hand, larger hubs with significant liquidity invested into them would still have total amounts and timeframes that *are* substantial enough that it would make sense for them to charge *some* fee. And discovering that feerate is the point of this exercise. On the other other hand, this may very well be "trade secret" territory, in which case there is no point in me asking about this topic anyway. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
