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

feat: add FMA for operator fee #186

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

leruaa
Copy link

@leruaa leruaa commented Jan 10, 2025

Description

This PR introduces the FMA for the operator fee feature, set to be included in Isthmus.

Additional context

- [Spec](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/specs/pull/382)

## Failure Modes and Recovery Paths

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Database growth increase results in need for 4444 faster or other history expiry solution

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What are the other potential history expiry solutions? Just state pruning?

Also, the operator fee won't result in significant database growth on it's own right?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a question for you to answer :)

Basically whatever the extra data to the L1 attributes txs is, that is stored to the db every 2s for OPM and Base, every 1s for Unichain/Ink/Soneium, so that adds up to be a lot over time. Its just a consideration and not a blocker. Eventually we need to use a diff based L1 attributes tx to not repeat data being sent over and over again

@ratankaliani
Copy link

Any other failure modes that come to mind @tynes? Are there other external parties beyond wallets that may fail to update their fee estimation logic that we should be aware of?

@tynes
Copy link
Contributor

tynes commented Feb 3, 2025

we have some considerations for generic hardforks here:

could be useful to look at this too

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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants