New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Acinq trampoline fees have been raised recently #9033
Comments
That is correct, we indeed raised our trampoline fees to 0.4% + 4 sats. We do reject payments that use a lower fee. This can be an issue in the multi-trampoline setting, but as was discussed with the introduction of blinded paths, there won't be a need for multi-trampoline payments in the future: a single trampoline node paying to a blinded path guarantees privacy while being more efficient than using multiple trampoline nodes. |
Values for exponential search are based on available fee budget: we try with budget/64, budget/32, ..., budget/1 (spread uniformly among the selected Trampoline Forwarders). Hence, if we make the fee budget configurable, that will usefully affect the trampoline fees as well. related spesmilo#9033
According to @t-bast, the trampoline routing fees of the Acinq node were recently raised to 0.4%
The highest fee level tried by Electrum is 0.3% plus a base fee of 100 sats:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: