Matt Corallo

I feel like the "are bLIPs a pre-BOLT, or something different (ie just a vendor standard)" question is the question here, and I'm not a fan of renaming to imply...

> Not necessarily, I quite like spark mostly because it's smaller than bolts, a small addition to the ecosystem (and dislike blast because it's bigger), regardless of whether it may...

I'll follow up there but I'm really not clear on why we want something different in bLIP 36. In any case, however, this is live in existing LSPS specs so...

> Assuming the total routing fee on the channel is 300 ppm (as stated above). Why should Bob only get 100ppm and Alice 200ppm? The HTLC will fail. > How...

More generally, however, see the motivation section of the bLIP here - even if we assume routing nodes don't want this, nodes may want it on private channels for LSP...

> Another fee model that has been talked about in the past is 'pair-wise' fees. In that model, a routing node can assign a specific fee for each combination of...

< Not saying that this is how it should be, but I do value the extensibility that the gossip model offers if a need for this would arise in the...

Yes, the node asking for a fee update has to wait for their peer to send back (and thus broadcast) an updated `channel_update` before they can enforce the new fees...

Presumably either feedback being address or the author saying they don't want to address feedback so we can merge this! :)

IMO this should not go in the channel_update message, but rather a new point-to-point message to tell the counterparty to decrease their outbound fee by this much. That way you...