isthmus: operator fee #388
Conversation
| GasLimit: header.GasLimit, | ||
| Random: random, | ||
| L1CostFunc: types.NewL1CostFunc(config, statedb), | ||
| OperatorCostFunc: types.NewOperatorCostFunc(config, statedb), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean towards not adding a new hook and just making the L1 cost function more generic, a better name for it would be L2CostFunc which would imply it does the L2 specific fee calculations. Curious what other people think
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about this too. Currently, these are the function signatures for the L1CostFunc and the OperatorCostFunc
type L1CostFunc func(rcd RollupCostData, blockTime uint64) *big.Int
type OperatorCostFunc func(gasUsed *big.Int, isRefund bool, blockTime uint64) *big.Int
I could potentially package up the gasUsed and isRefund together into an OperatorCostData or something. Then, we'd have this type.
type L2CostFunc func(rcd RollupCostData, ocd OperatorCostData, blockTime uint64) (*big.Int, *big.Int)
which returns the l1 cost and operator cost as a pair.
This pattern seems clunkier to me -- though the L1 fee and Operator fee are conceptually similar, I don't like returning both in a single function. For example, when calculating refunds, we only need the operator fee but not the L1 fee.
I'd definitely be open to unifying the two with a cleaner function design though.
Adds the operator fee, as described in this design doc and this spec