Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? [combined summary]

• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? Rusty Russell 2019-11-04 04:38:39+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? Rusty Russell 2019-10-14 01:32:23+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? ecurrencyhodler 2019-10-12 17:16:09+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? Olaoluwa Osuntokun 2019-10-12 01:23:04+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? Pierre 2019-10-11 08:12:53+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? ZmnSCPxj 2019-10-11 03:15:50+00:00
• Increasing fee defaults to 5000+500 for a healthier network? Rusty Russell 2019-10-11 02:33:41+00:00

Published on: 2019-11-04T04:38:39+00:00

Summary:

In a discussion about the relationship between channel fees and node reliability, Rusty Russell suggests that higher fees could be a signal of better routing node operation. However, Olaoluwa Osuntokun argues that raising or lowering fees does not necessarily improve node reliability. Rusty examines data on channel reliability and finds that his assumption is incorrect, with a potential negative correlation between fees and offline channels.Rusty proposed increasing the default fee rate for Lightning Network in a Lightning-dev mailing list. However, Olaoluwa Osuntokun expresses concern about making sweeping changes to default values like fees, as it could promote the notion that developers decide on fees. Osuntokun believes that there is no meaningful market signal in fees yet, as routing node operators have yet to consider the various costs of operating a node in their fee schedules. Instead, Osuntokun suggests focusing on educating prospective routing node operators and providing analysis tools for better channel management and liquidity allocation decisions.Rusty's proposal to change the default routing fees for new channels to 5000 msat + 500ppm is based on the observation that low fees are now seen as an indication of lower reliability. He argues that there is no meaningful market signal in fees below 1 ppm. In support of his proposal, he points to lightningpowerusers.com, which charges higher fees and has significant usage. However, Olaoluwa Osuntokun addresses flaws in Russell's reasoning, such as defaults not necessarily indicating higher or lower reliability. Osuntokun suggests that the network is still too young to derive meaningful observations around a routing fee market and emphasizes the need for more education and tools for routing node operators.Rusty's proposal received mixed reception, with some arguing that raising default fees would be misguided. Pierre responds to Rusty's message in agreement, indicating that he finds the suggestion reasonable.Overall, the proposal aims to address issues with low fees being perceived as lower reliability and the lack of a meaningful market signal in fees. The debate centers around whether changing default fees is the right approach or if more emphasis should be placed on education and tools for routing node operators to make economically rational fee decisions.

Updated on: 2023-07-31T22:11:10.670031+00:00