Skip to content
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

Closed
ecdsa opened this issue Apr 30, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #9041
Closed

Acinq trampoline fees have been raised recently #9033

ecdsa opened this issue Apr 30, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #9041
Milestone

Comments

@ecdsa
Copy link
Member

ecdsa commented Apr 30, 2024

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:

    {
        'fee_base_msat': 100000,
        'fee_proportional_millionths': 3000,
	'cltv_expiry_delta': 576,
    },

@t-bast
Copy link

t-bast commented Apr 30, 2024

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.

@ecdsa ecdsa added this to the 4.5.5 milestone Apr 30, 2024
SomberNight added a commit to SomberNight/electrum that referenced this issue May 6, 2024
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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants