Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

Although lightning and cryptocurrency is new, the idea of a distribution network created from links with negotiated fees and with limited unidirectional capacity that can be corrected via rebalancing, is not new. In fact there are several very large and mature markets around the world that we can

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

Mark Friedenbach writes: > It is not the case that all instances where you might have negative > fees would have loops. If we don't have a cycle we can hardly talk about rebalancing channels. At that point you're paying for someone else's payment to go through your

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

Benjamin Mord writes: > It isn't obvious to me from the BOLTs if fees can be negative, and I'm > finding uint in the go source code - which suggests not. In scenarios where > the funding of a payment channel has been fully committed in one direction, > why not allow negative fees to

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

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

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

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

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

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

Re: [Lightning-dev] negative fees for HTLC relay

Benjamin Mord writes: > [..] > why not allow negative fees to incent unwinding, in scenarios where nodes > consider that cheaper than on-chain rebalancing? This was brought up before here [1]: Rusty Russell writes: >> Edward Marynarz writes: >> Another trivial question: can the