Matt Corallo

A channel participant can inform their counterparty that they wish to take a negative inbound fee for the channel, then their counterparty can subtract the given inbound fee from their...

> I suppose it's up to your counterparty to actually lower their outbound fee and not something that can be enforced. Sure, they could also increase their fee corresponding to...

> With the new p2p proposal, it may not be necessary anymore to do negative fees. That was just for backwards compatibility. I think it can be reformulated to positive...

If you assume very broad deployment of that feature, then yes, I think I'd agree, but in that case I don't think the feature is really a decent candidate for...

I don't think anything needs to change? The first node compares the fee paid according to the onion to what they announced (including the discount). The discount only applies at...

I'm not sure how this differs - either way you have a new argument to your logic that checks an HTLC pays the appropriate fees. There is a slight difference...

Right, but in those same cases routing algorithms would need to be modified to support negative fees, which AFAIK no existing node supports. I think negative fees are somewhat of...

> Although for p2p this may be uncomfortable for peers, because they need to monitor the inbound fee closely and adjust their fees accordingly to make sure they charge as...

Its kinda awkward, but the poll indicates people are split, so I'm not sure there's a "right" answer here - that said, keeping it backwards-compatible (and allowing both positive and...

I don't buy that that is a sufficient reason to complicate the network more for normal nodes, nor that its worth the restriction that the inbound fees are no longer...