https://nostr.ae https://nostr.ae/npub1dnqu8va360ltnqewepgg5xqh2xdvs8t32tgvs5eaatz2ne6l2f6sna8mgc https://nostr.ae/nevent1qqsgw9qe3tt9rdfhcz4s8t930nw35jv8thpmyvrw60l9n9n3ltr7jwqzypkvrsank8flawvr9my9pzsczage4jqaw9fdpjzn8h4vf208taf82u9hpjy In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqs9lstpu3qz8hrdpnefmgf3kyffvv47sprxjjp08kqcjpjth3r8m0cws3pha'>nevent1q…3pha</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>📅 Original date posted:2018-12-27<br/>📝 Original message:<br/>Very good point.<br/><br/>Two possible responses come to mind.<br/><br/>1. Cross-asset brokers charge a standard option premium to perform the brokerage. I can&#39;t tell if you think this is totally broken or if it&#39;s just sad. I don&#39;t understand lightning well enough to figure that out on my own - could you expand more on what effects this would have?<br/><br/>2. Cross-asset brokers require counterparties to issue them a symmetric but slightly more out-of-the-money call, which they can redeem in the event of a large FX swing. This bounds their FX losses.<br/><br/><br/>Will<br/><br/><br/><br/>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br/>On Thursday, December 27, 2018 1:43 PM, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev &lt;lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<br/><br/><br/>&gt; HTLCs allow creation of American Call Options. 2023-06-09T12:53:36Z https://nostr.ae/nevent1qqs0xwxgsh0qjfk6ruhlm9ewxj0zf6hu7ysz30pyu2g8k4ca0gx2fdczypkvrsank8flawvr9my9pzsczage4jqaw9fdpjzn8h4vf208taf82ekmzy8 In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqs86yl8u9w9z9dq8fcegl89cudylnjflf99gqu04y3yftdsr9xf7mcd9xl4w'>nevent1q…xl4w</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>📅 Original date posted:2018-01-16<br/>📝 Original message:<br/>I agree. Negative shadow prices are incredibly important for optimality of constrained network markets where flows in opposite directions cancel (as is the case with lightning). See for example FTRs. It’s unclear to me how well the analogy holds, but it’s worth considering.<br/><br/>—Will<br/><br/>On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Benjamin Mord &lt;ben at mord.io&gt; wrote:<br/><br/>&gt; Thanks. It sounds like it was dropped due to difficulty in the routing protocol. Is that difficulty documented somewhere I can review? If so, I might take a crack at a solution to it. But regardless I suggest the protocol should support negative fees, even if an individual routing implementation prefers to treat as 0 for simplicity. That should be up to the implementation I think, and not a protocol constraint.<br/>-------------- next part --------------<br/>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br/>URL: &lt;<a href="http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/b22f2a29/attachment-0001.html&gt">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180116/b22f2a29/attachment-0001.html&gt</a>; 2023-06-09T12:48:35Z