Rusty Russell writes:
> Olaoluwa Osuntokun writes:
>> Defaults don't necessarily indicate higher/lower reliability. Issuing a
>> single CLI command to raise/lower the fees on one's node doesn't magically
>> make the owner of said node a _better_ routing node operator.
>
> No, but those who put ef
Olaoluwa Osuntokun writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> I think this change may be a bit misguided, and we should be careful about
> making sweeping changes to default values like this such as fees. I'm
> worried that this post (and the subsequent LGTMs by some developers)
> promotes the notion that somehow in
Good morning Rusty.
To add to roasbeef's point, I don't think lightningpowerusers.com is a good
indicator for market tolerance for higher fees either. It's highly
connected and does a lot of routing because Pierre has on boarded many
users through the node launcher. That means most of these users
Hi Rusty,
I think this change may be a bit misguided, and we should be careful about
making sweeping changes to default values like this such as fees. I'm
worried that this post (and the subsequent LGTMs by some developers)
promotes the notion that somehow in Lightning, developers decide on fees
(
Hi Rusty,
That seems reasonable.
Cheers,
Pierre
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
Good morning,
Looks fine to me.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at the current lightning network fees, and it
> shows that 2/3 are sitting on the default (1000 msat + 1 ppm).
>
> This has two problems:
>
> 1. Low fees are now a negative signal: defaults actually indicate
>
