@C_Otto
129,785 sats stacked
stacking since: #14089longest cowboy streak: 2
bio
200 items
by
for
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 12 May \ parent \ on: My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de lightning
It's part of the new proto file released with lnd v0.18, with additional parameters for updatechanpolicy in lncli and the APIs. I don't see the reason, but you could check the existence of these parameters if you don't know the version of lnd itself.
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto OP 12 May \ parent \ on: My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de lightning
Current fee settings don't allow inbound fees.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 12 May \ parent \ on: My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de lightning
No. I already have/run a known and reliable routing node. I don't need to advertise its existence, but I want to incentivize more routing to happen. Negative inbound fees don't mean that I don't earn fees.
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto OP 12 May \ parent \ on: My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de lightning
I don't have more than this. My goal is to route more.
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 12 May \ parent \ on: My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de lightning
This only affects my node, not the whole lightning network. As such, I think you're dealing with philosophical questions, whereas I try find concrete answers to problems I face myself.
My inbound fee policy for c-otto.de
1241 sats \ 20 comments \ @C_Otto 12 May lightning
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto OP 11 May \ parent \ on: Where's ~lightning? meta
Yeah, I saw that. I don't run a business myself, but maybe it makes sense to make certain BTC related channels (like this one) free to attract more users?
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @C_Otto OP 11 May \ parent \ on: Where's ~lightning? meta
Oh, I didn't expect it to be a) that much b) recurring. I'm noping out.
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @C_Otto OP 11 May \ parent \ on: Where's ~lightning? meta
Thanks, who needs sats anyway... fake money :)
Where's ~lightning?
31 sats \ 10 comments \ @C_Otto 11 May meta
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @C_Otto OP 7 May \ parent \ on: Please help me understand uneconomical forwards lightning
  • c-otto.de to ACINQ: 100M capacity, time lock delta 99
  • c-otto.de to lnd v0.18.0-beta.rc1: 2.5M capacity, time lock delta 99
  • lnd v0.18.0-beta.rc1 to ACINQ: 4M capacity, time lock delta 100
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @C_Otto OP 7 May \ parent \ on: Please help me understand uneconomical forwards lightning
Interesting. Is paying 6x the price worth it, though?
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 7 May \ parent \ on: Please help me understand uneconomical forwards lightning
c-otto.de is both (tor, ipv4, ipv6), the other node is tor only. I'm not sending any payment, I'm forwarding payments.
Please help me understand uneconomical forwards
409 sats \ 14 comments \ @C_Otto 7 May lightning
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @C_Otto OP 3 May \ parent \ on: I took advantage of negative inbound fees in a top-up (rebalance) transaction lightning
It should happen automatically once enough nodes upgrade, set their fees, and implementations tweak their pathfinding algorithms. I think lnd has already done it, so we just have to wait a bit.