AB17.9%
BC82.1%
28 votes \ poll ended
pull down to refresh
210 sats \ 1 reply \ @pillar 25 Sep 2022
You pay for going out of a channel. On the first hop, you don't pay because it's your channel. On the second hop, you pay B the fees set on channel BC. See more here.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Sep 2022
You don't pay B only when you pay B directly, when B is making you a LN invoice and you pay him without any other route.
But when you use B to route your other invoice to C, you will pay him the fee for routing that tx.
https://docs.lightning.engineering/lightning-network-tools/lnd/channel-fees
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 25 Sep 2022
You reimburse B for forwarding to C by paying the fee policy of channel BC.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 25 Sep 2022
Interesting that fee siphoning attack would be much easier if AB takes place.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Sep 2022
A pays to B for the ch AB
A pays to C for the ch BC
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 25 Sep 2022
Porque no los dos? :)
I mean, when you pay fees for routing, you're always paying a specific party for the benefit of connecting two channels: the payment occurs "in" the sending side channel (here, in AB), but that's not the same as "paying for" - you're paying B for their service, not "paying fees for a channel".
So "paying in" is concrete, by "paying for" is almost a philosophical question, albeit a fairly simple one.
reply