Mark Tyneway
Mark Tyneway
We out of band decided on a sandwich approach where the L1 attributes tx sets `isDeposit = true` then derivation creates another deposit tx that is at the tail end...
This 100% is a valid concern, I think we should: >We could re-examine the ResourceConfig.maxResourceLimit and lower it if necessary. We shouldn't have to think about this, its left over...
Looks like this needs a rebase now @skeletor-spaceman, happy to review again when its ready
@skeletor-spaceman The CI is failing
Replaced by https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/specs/issues/416
We likely should revisit this PR to make sure that the supervisor API is specified @protolambda @tyler-smith
Span batch support for the [set code tx type](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/f8adac6a3be5de45dc2b6077f8d959c0765dabf5/EIPS/eip-7702.md) was implemented [here](https://github.com/Rjected/optimism/commit/dcc08095e125b42415ad8c9a21d4b11ec1fb2333)
`op-geth` with 7702 support was implemented [here](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/op-geth/compare/optimism...Rjected:op-geth:optimism)
I believe that we decided to not merge this
Can you confirm @clabby ?