Author: Matt Corallo 2021-08-25 03:50:42
Published on: 2021-08-25T03:50:42+00:00
Matt and Anthony had a debate about the usefulness of base fees in routing algorithms for Lightning Network transactions. While Matt believed that base fees were still necessary to capture certain costs and prevent DoS attacks, Anthony suggested that proportional fees and minimum payment values could suffice without the need for a base fee. The discussion primarily revolved around the proportional fee mechanism in Lightning Network. One user questioned whether a proportional fee would capture the costs of individual HTLCs equally well. Another user argued that 1 sat per HTLC was too expensive and suggested proportional fees as an alternative. However, the first user pointed out that this pricing did not capture the actual cost of HTLCs and proposed semi-serious proposals to ignore nodes that did not set their fee structure for routing decisions.The conversation then shifted to limiting the number of HTLC slots once the network switches to eltoo. The limit is to keep transactions broadcastable, but eltoo solves the broadcastability issue. However, there are still other limits that need consideration if worried about having too many pending HTLCs.Eventually, the conversation returned to base fees again. One user argued that zero base fees could work if 50% of the network switched to it and found it functional. However, others argued that such a decision would not be suitable for the long-term health of the network. They also pointed out that the rejection of recommendations by several node operators would indicate that something was not working correctly.Overall, the conversation remained civil, with both parties open to discussing and debating each other's points. Node operators were encouraged to set their fees based on their desired profit margins and transaction volumes, using a combination of proportional fees and minimum payment values. Having multiple channels between nodes with varying fee structures allowed for more nuanced fee discrimination.
Updated on: 2023-05-23T15:35:23.327393+00:00