Published on: 2018-01-18T18:10:53+00:00
The concept of negative fees in the Lightning Network has been a topic of discussion among experts. Mark Friedenbach suggests that while negative fees might be useful in certain situations, such as rebalancing when the network becomes unbalanced or when one side is non-routable, it should not be baked into the gossip protocol itself. Instead, he proposes changing the network topology or moving a sink to the other side of the cut.In a discussion on the Lightning-dev mailing list, Christian Decker argues against negative fees, stating that they add complexity to routing and result in less control over the rebalancing process. He suggests routing payments around exhausted channels rather than artificially rebalancing. Benjamin Mord also raises the question of negative fees but agrees that allowing only positive fees simplifies routing and still allows for active rebalancing if needed.The importance of negative shadow prices for optimal constrained network markets is mentioned, with the example of FTRs illustrating the cancelation of flows in opposite directions. However, it is acknowledged that the analogy may not hold completely. The difficulty in the routing protocol supporting negative fees is not well-documented, but it is suggested that the protocol should allow for them, leaving the decision to treat them as zero up to individual implementations.The idea of allowing negative fees was previously proposed by Edward Marynarz and implemented in the original version of the Lightning Network protocol. However, Rusty Russell deemed it a complicated feature that could potentially hinder routing. The difficulty with the routing protocol has been documented in previous email threads, and Benjamin Mord expresses interest in reviewing the documentation to propose a solution. While he believes that individual routing implementations should have the flexibility to treat negative fees as zero, he argues that the protocol itself should support negative fees.Overall, the debate around negative fees in the Lightning Network centers on the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a feature. While there are instances where negative fees could be useful, concerns about routing complexity and loss of control over rebalancing have led some experts to advocate for simpler routing with only positive fees. The importance of negative shadow prices in constrained network markets is also considered, although the analogy to Lightning Network may not be a perfect match. The decision on whether to allow negative fees ultimately depends on the protocol implementation and the trade-offs involved.
Updated on: 2023-07-31T19:39:48.518530+00:00