From edziumarynarz at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 06:37:37 2017 From: edziumarynarz at gmail.com (Edward Marynarz) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 07:37:37 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Directionality of the transaction fees In-Reply-To: <87shcgu484.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87wp1uxjh3.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87shcgu484.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > > It's good, though not as good as if both sender and recipient could set > > their own fees. I know it would have made everything more complicated > but > > receiving is actually more costly than sending. If you have less balance > > than the initial opening of the channel, it is risk-free. > > But forwarding nodes do both, so they can charge appropriate fees. If there is only one path, then yes. But with many paths, you cannot restrict the path you do not want to receive with. > > > Another trivial question: can the fee be negative? It might help with > some > > channel rebalancing. > > In my original implementation, they could be. However, that turns out > to be a very strange idea, and complicates routing. > > Interesting. > important than the LN fees. I worry about a scenario that I create a > > channel (paying fees), send some funds through the channel to have the > > channel available also for receiving and the other side of the channel, > > simply cashes out the balance, and I'm without the channel opening fees > > and with no receiving channel. > > The channel initiator pays all onchain fees, at the moment. This is > simple, but potentially gamable. However, current alternatives are > complex and potentially gamable, so we went with simple. > > So the only thing that protect a small-scale user from a hub that closes the channels with some balance fee-free is a) market pressure by avoiding the hubs that do it b) that Bitcoin is actually more expensive to receive than to send since inputs are larger than outputs? It should indeed work now but with Schnorr signatures, b) i no longer the case and we would only rely on a). And market pressure may be a too weak incentive because it requires knowledge that hubs behave in a certain way. And this information may be difficult to obtain, Regards, Edward -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: