pull down to refresh

205 sats \ 2 replies \ @aftermath 6 Apr \ parent \ on: Liquidity squeezing from your node lightning
Yes to both.
You can reject or accept channels based on any conditions you want (in LND you can do this with the ChannelAcceptor RPC).
Like I mentioned in the other comment, acceptlnd is quite handy to set this up.
On the fees side, you could theoretically mirror the fees of any node of the network in almost real-time. This can be achieved by subscribing to the channel graph events (in LND, using the SubscribeChannelGraph RPC) and updating your local channels fees based on the updates you see.
To give you another example of dynamic fees, in Hydrus, fee rates are set based on the forwards amount ratio. If the amount of incoming forwards is higher than the outgoing, the fee rate is decreased to incentivize routing. If it is the other way around, the fee rate is increased to disincentivize routing.
write
preview
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 7 Apr
However, one thing you can't do is set higher fees for routing payments coming from a specific channel.
Like a fee map for every i,j, incoming channel i, on outbound channel j, set the fee to c_{ij}
I always wanted to do this because funnily enough when my routing node was connected to Stacker.News, they were the ones liquidity squeezing me! Unintentionally I'm sure, but it happened haha
reply
134 sats \ 0 replies \ @aftermath 13 Apr
Well, you could theoretically set positive inbound fees in that channel to disincentivize routing (in LND, enabling the experimental configuration accept-positive-inbound-fees).
However, this seems to be causing some issues because peers that do not support inbound fees may be unaware of the added cost and will therefore fail to route through that channel without ever noticing why.
Another thing you could do is use the HtlcInterceptor RPC to intercept the HTLC and let it through only if you are happy with the fees you will earn from the outgoing channel.
reply