Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-01-17 📝 Original message: Negative fees also come ...

📅 Original date posted:2018-01-17
📝 Original message:
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 16, 2018, at 2:45 PM, Will Yager <lists at yager.io> wrote:
>
> 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 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Benjamin Mord <ben at mord.io> wrote:
>>
>> 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 prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to the implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/46be8616/attachment-0001.html>;