Mark Tyneway
Mark Tyneway
/ci authorize https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/optimism/pull/16408/commits/27c857c8430a4778c1c680185a0b0fe2f4d84b1f
> nit: let's simply call this `admin_propose` or such. So the naming is agnostic to output or super roots @Inphi i have addressed this comment
/ci authorize https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/optimism/pull/16408/commits/a65f60c11272c6340fa9ce8adb955fe0e1e8723c
/ci authorize https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/optimism/pull/16408/commits/a65f60c11272c6340fa9ce8adb955fe0e1e8723c
We will want to spec this new behavior in the predeploys. The `L1Block` contract would need a new getter, something like `isDeposit()(bool)`. The `CrossL2Inbox` would add an invariant `if (l1Block.isDeposit()...
We could avoid mutating deposits by adding another function on the `OptimismPortal` that emits the deposit transaction event but this still does not solve the problem with the sequence window....
In my mind there are 2 ways to think about this problem, one is completely within the smart contracts and one is completely within the derivation pipeline. The [smart contract](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/optimism/issues/10887#issuecomment-2182036414)...
Specs in progress: https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/specs/pull/258
> I'll propose an alternative approach: Instead of having to upgrade the sensitive `L1Block` contract, and having to turn on `isDeposit` at the start of the block, while also having...
Needs a review and a few comments to be resolved. Smart contract wise, everything is done. Very close to being complete