0

If so, that would make it possible for that same node to have 1 very well funded inbound channel with only 1 other node that they also own and price gouge fees to route payment to them through this one connection.

For example, let's say that the company is a major financial institution, service provider or retailer with a high market demand. The company then creates a Lightning node (call this node A), and node A has only 1 inbound channel for billions of USD in SATs with only 1 other node (node B) on the network, which the company also owns/controls. The company then forcibly denies all incoming open_channel requests to node A, and only allows and/or advertises connections with node B. Users then have to connect to node B to route payments to node A for products or services. The company then jacks up the fees to route through node B forcing all users that send money to them to go through node B and pay this exorbitant price. Since the company is very widely used and popular in the market, demand for their services is high. Thus, consumers would be forced into paying a crazy fee until a competing service enters the market. Given the large amounts of capital available to this company, the cost of closing / opening a channel between the nodes is not a large concern give how cheap that on-chain txn is in comparison to the profit in fees.

Is this scenario possible? If so, is anything being done to mitigate it? If not, why? What would prevent a company from doing this other than bad publicity?

2

Yes, it is technically possible.

But it seems to be more of an economic question rather than a technical one. Ultimately it is answered by the question: "how high a fee are buyers ready to pay?".

This has nothing to do with Lightning, or Bitcoin in particular. Hidden fees are everywhere.

3
  • Thanks for your answer. I guess I was more so curious about a node's ability to proactively (rather than reactively) prevent other nodes from opening channels directly to it using LND or c-lightning. The economic scenario was simply an example to highlight the potential negative outcome of that functionality (if it exists) and to inquire about a potential fix to avoid that scenario. I suppose I'll go look deeper into the LND and c-lighting codebase for that answer.
    – 0xNonni
    Sep 5 at 14:15
  • This functionality does exist. But you can't have a technical "fix".
    – darosior
    Sep 5 at 14:31
  • I see. Well thanks so much for your helpful and insightful responses.
    – 0xNonni
    Sep 6 at 20:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.