You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
LSPS1 uses one field fee_total_sat to indicate how much the user needs to pay for the requested channel.
Issue: With rising onchain fees, onchain payments are exceedingly more expensive for the lsp than lightning payments. Onchain payments create its own UTXO and are therefore more expensive for the LSP to spend.
Solution: Add a different price for LN payments compared to onchain payments. This can be done directly now or in a backwards compatible way at a later point.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
SeverinAlexB
changed the title
LSPS1: Use a seperate fee for onchain payments vs ln payments
LSPS1: Use a separate fee for onchain payments vs ln payments
Feb 28, 2024
SeverinAlexB
changed the title
LSPS1: Use a separate fee for onchain payments vs ln payments
LSPS1: Use a separate fee for onchain vs ln payments
Feb 28, 2024
Having a separate fee for on-chain is a good idea.
If we change the spec I'd like to consider how we could include dual funding as a payment option.
The proposal is final and has been merged a 2 weeks ago.
LSPS1 uses one field fee_total_sat to indicate how much the user needs to pay for the requested channel.
Issue: With rising onchain fees, onchain payments are exceedingly more expensive for the lsp than lightning payments. Onchain payments create its own UTXO and are therefore more expensive for the LSP to spend.
Solution: Add a different price for LN payments compared to onchain payments. This can be done directly now or in a backwards compatible way at a later point.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: